Authoritarian Government is the traditional alternative to Democracy. Whereas in the latter, power is vested generally in three branches of government—the Legislative, Executive and Judiciary—in authoritarianism, the power to rule is centered on either one person (in the case of monarchies and dictatorships) or one group (an oligarchy, or in the more modern sense, junta). It is the more traditional form of government than Democracy, as even before the evolution of democratic rule, one form or another of authoritarian rule existed. It is also the more natural form of rule than the democratic one, as rule under a democratic state is heavily dependent on economic stability and prosperity as well as continued popular enthusiasm, while under the authoritarian state the leader can only choose to woo popular support, as he could easily use repressive tactics if there was any dissension.
The one-person form of the authoritarian government is generally referred to as an Autocracy. The right to rule in traditional autocracies, such as monarchs and theocracies, is acquired through dynastic right or religious anointment. By dynastic right, power is concentrated on a ruling family, whereby kingship is passed from father to son. If autocracies were succeeded through force of arms, it is usually after a struggle between two different dynastic families, or even members from within one family. Leaders of theocratic states, on the other hand, have their right bestowed upon them by virtue of religious doctrine. Caliphs during Medieval times were both dynastic—inasmuch as they had affiliation with the Muslim prophet Mohammed, and therefore succeeded him in religious leadership—and religious in character, as they were both political and religious leaders of their respective countries or kingdoms. Similarly, Chinese imperial rule is “dynastic” and sanctioned by a “Mandate of Heaven”.
Oligarchies also existed in ancient times. The Roman Republic, before devolving into Caesarian autocracy, was ruled primarily by the Roman Senate, which in turn had memberships only among the Founding Families of Rome.
With the advent of the modern age, and democratic rule, authoritarianism reasserted itself in a different form: the autocrat is now the dictator, and the oligarchy of old has become the junta. In both reincarnations, power is assured by a strong military, and usually the ruler or group of rulers belong to the armed forces. Since most monarchies and theocracies have given way before democratic government, those who attain authoritarian power are no longer supported by dynastic or religious right, and owe their ascension through forcible seizure of government, whether that government be originally democratic or an authoritarian one.
Naturally, then, dictators and juntas retain power so long as they have the support of the armed forces. With the military and police at hand, they would necessarily suppress all anti-government thought, and consequently sponsor media censorship, persecutions of political opponents, and disbandments of opposing political parties. In that sense, the dictator has the option to stay his hand, and actively try to win the support of the people, while at the same time pursuing economic and domestic policies aimed at currying their favor, or keep the military alert against all growing discontentment and crack down on active opposition to his government.
At the least, autocracies do not actively attempt to change society—regimes will change in succession but so long as the individual does not oppose the government, their lives will remain the same. The autocrat’s first concern is himself, and how he will retain power. As the people do not have direct involvement in his keeping it, he will naturally act to benefit those that do—the military.
The Totalitarian Phenomenon
With the passing of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, a new form of authoritarian rule emerged, and quickly evolved into a separate type of government altogether. Traditional authoritarian rule tended to stay away from forcibly transforming and subjugating society—but this radical new form of authoritarianism, totalitarianism, would seek to shape society itself into a more politically suitable form. The totalitarian government will not only be concerned with the arrangement of the present governing bureaucracy, but would also seek to control every facet of their citizen’s life, persecute those whose ideas and living are “politically unacceptable.”
Totalitarianisms are generally “dictatorships of ideology”. The entire organ of the State is centered upon one particular ideology, and the governing body is composed of members dedicated to its propagation. They are somewhat similar with theocracies, as they try to instill within their subject peoples their ideology as a sort of “state religion”. The significant difference between a totalitarian state and a theocracy is by the former’s forcible subjugation and conversion of its people to the State ideology. Whereas the traditional authoritarian leader will eliminate individuals that are deemed threats to their political tenure, wholesale groups that do not “fit in” in the Totalitarian state are executed, sometimes systematically. This was seen in Nazi Germany, where individuals not having “Aryan blood” were killed, as well as Mao’s Communist China during the Cultural Revolution when all articles and individuals deemed “Western” or “unacceptable” were dealt with by the Red Guard.
As “dictatorships of ideology”, totalitarian regimes are products of violent revolutionary movement. This movement begins to grow within a weakened or dying political system. This government is publicly unpopular, and is no longer able to quell dissension. The democratic Weimar Government, for example, could no longer quell unrest in Germany while at the same time paying the reparations from the last war, when Hitler rose to power. The Totalitarian Movement will use the weakness of the present government to champion their cause to the people. In that sense they are similar to democratic governments, as they seek to attain power through popular support.
Propaganda and violence will go hand in hand. The movement will try to distort the truth, if necessary, to pin the blame of the people’s ills on what they deem a “failed system”. They will feed on the anger and discontentment of the people, while at the same time paint a “utopia”, or a better way of life and world under their rule. They will employ violence to intimidate the people to their way of thinking, and to brutally suppress opposition. Since the duration of a totalitarian regime depends on the strength of the ideology, the latter will have to have a central charismatic figure, an icon, who will constantly imbibe the tenets of the State ideology upon the people. Lenin was the Bolshevik’s icon, and Mao was Communist China’s. In due course, propaganda will continue even after the Totalitarian leaders have become undisputed rulers of the country.
Having attained absolute power, the totalitarian regime will not content itself with eliminating the “political undesirables”; they will center to themselves all activities, and all facets of social interaction. They will regulate education to teach the State ideology; they will control the distribution of the basic individual necessities, particularly food. No individual will be allowed to leave the country or do anything without the permission of the State. Ideally, they will regulate all thought to fit the State ideology.
Countries in Transition
The most painful period in any country is during transition. When a system of government or a regime finally collapses, with no strong authoritarian or powerful movement waiting under the wings to take over, it suffers a period of transition. The collapse of the regime usually would come about from a simple will to overthrow, with no clear ideology or system to replace it with. Having lived under one form of government, any other political system would seem alien to them, and often this would lead to some form or element of the previous government be carried over.
Countries with recently collapsed political systems would be faced with splintering of any or various ethnic groups within it. The previous authoritarian regime, or dictatorship, may have kept the unity of the country by force or power. Its fall will necessitate a weakening of the country, and the ethnic conflicts once kept in checked would reemerge. Shortly after the death of the Yugoslavian Premier Tito, the country splintered into various proto-nations of Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, etc. Likewise after the fall of Slobodan Milosevic, the province of Kosovo managed to break away from union with Serbia.
Sometimes, the political system of government will not entirely collapse; it will compromise by giving up on some of its long-held tenets but retain its core ideology: China under Deng Xiaoping, introduced Capitalism to China, and gave up the Communist concept of “controlled market”. However, it remains a repressive regime, as evidenced by the brutal suppression of the Tiananmen demonstrations, as well as the recent Tibetan protests. Even if the country changes political systems, some form or element from the previous regime will be retained and adopted. Vladimir Putin has used strongman Soviet tactics to quell political opposition, force a favorable situation in the former Soviet republic of Georgia, and retained power by “ensuring” a nominal President in Medvedev and having himself appointed as Prime Minister.
The worst that could come from a period of transition is the very real prospect that faced with no strong alternative, the country will revert back to the old regime. Any country in transition begins as weakened politically and militarily. If it does not collapse to anarchistic chaos, a more centralized leadership will fill in the void. Nigeria, for example, suffered two experiments in democracy, before reverting to military or civil dictatorships. Russia, after the period under Yeltsin, is slowly reverting to another form of authoritarian rule under Putin.
;
