Jump to content

Authoritarianism

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about authoritarianism in political science and organizational studies. For authoritarianism in psychology, see Authoritarian personality. For a form of government where power is held by a single individual, see Autocracy.

Part of the Politics series
Basic forms of government
List of forms · List of countries
Source of power
Democracy (rule by many)
Oligarchy (rule by few)
Autocracy (rule by one)
Anarchy (rule by none)
Power ideology
(socio-political ideologies)
(socio-economic ideologies)
  • Religious
  • Secular
(geo-cultural ideologies)
Power structure
Unitarism
Client state
Federalism
International relations
Related
icon Politics portal

Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in democracy, separation of powers, civil liberties, and the rule of law.[1][2] Political scientists have created typologies describing variations of authoritarian forms of government.[2] Authoritarian regimes may be either autocratic or oligarchic and may be based upon the rule of a party or the military.[3][4] States that have a blurred boundary between democracy and authoritarianism have some times been characterized as "hybrid democracies", "hybrid regimes" or "competitive authoritarian" states.[5][6][7]

The political scientist Juan Linz, in an influential[8] 1964 work, An Authoritarian Regime: Spain, defined authoritarianism as possessing four qualities:

  1. Limited political pluralism, which is achieved with constraints on the legislature, political parties and interest groups.
  2. Political legitimacy based on appeals to emotion and identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems, such as underdevelopment or insurgency."
  3. Minimal political mobilization, and suppression of anti-regime activities.
  4. Ill-defined executive powers, often vague and shifting, used to extend the power of the executive.[9][10]

Minimally defined, an authoritarian government lacks free and competitive direct elections to legislatures, free and competitive direct or indirect elections for executives, or both.[11][12][13][14] Broadly defined, authoritarian states include countries that lack human rights such as freedom of religion, or countries in which the government and the opposition do not alternate in power at least once following free elections.[15] Authoritarian states might contain nominally democratic institutions such as political parties, legislatures and elections which are managed to entrench authoritarian rule and can feature fraudulent, non-competitive elections.[16]

Since 1946, the share of authoritarian states in the international political system increased until the mid-1970s but declined from then until the year 2000.[17] Prior to 2000, dictatorships typically began with a coup and replaced a pre-existing authoritarian regime.[18] Since 2000, dictatorships are most likely to begin through democratic backsliding whereby a democratically elected leader established an authoritarian regime.[18]

Characteristics

Authoritarianism is characterized by highly concentrated and centralized government power maintained by political repression and the exclusion of potential or supposed challengers by armed force. It uses political parties and mass organizations to mobilize people around the goals of the regime.[19] Adam Przeworski has theorized that "authoritarian equilibrium rests mainly on lies, fear and economic prosperity."[20]

Authoritarianism also tends to embrace the informal and unregulated exercise of political power, a leadership that is "self-appointed and even if elected cannot be displaced by citizens' free choice among competitors", the arbitrary deprivation of civil liberties and little tolerance for meaningful opposition.[19] A range of social controls also attempt to stifle civil society while political stability is maintained by control over and support of the armed forces, a bureaucracy staffed by the regime and creation of allegiance through various means of socialization and indoctrination.[19] Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart identify authoritarianism in politicians and political parties by looking for values of security, conformity, and obedience.[21]

Authoritarianism is marked by "indefinite political tenure" of the ruler or ruling party (often in a one-party state) or other authority.[19] The transition from an authoritarian system to a more democratic form of government is referred to as democratization.[19]

Constitutions in authoritarian regimes

Authoritarian regimes often adopt "the institutional trappings" of democracies such as constitutions.[22] Constitutions in authoritarian states may serve a variety of roles, including "operating manual" (describing how the government is to function); "billboard" (signal of regime's intent), "blueprint" (outline of future regime plans), and "window dressing" (material designed to obfuscate, such as provisions setting forth freedoms that are not honored in practice).[23] Authoritarian constitutions may help legitimize, strengthen, and consolidate regimes.[24] An authoritarian constitution "that successfully coordinates government action and defines popular expectations can also help consolidate the regime's grip on power by inhibiting re coordination on a different set of arrangements."[25] Unlike democratic constitutions, authoritarian constitutions do not set direct limits on executive authority; however, in some cases such documents may function as ways for elites to protect their own property rights or constrain autocrats' behavior.[26]

The Soviet Russia Constitution of 1918, the first charter of the new Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic (RSFSR), was described by Vladimir Lenin as a "revolutionary" document. It was, he said, unlike any constitution drafted by a nation-state.[27] The concept of "authoritarian constitutionalism" has been developed by legal scholar Mark Tushnet.[28] Tushnet distinguishes authoritarian constitutionalist regimes from "liberal constitutionalist" regimes ("the sort familiar in the modern West, with core commitments to human rights and self-governance implemented by means of varying institutional devices") and from purely authoritarian regimes (which reject the idea of human rights or constraints on leaders' power).[28] He describes authoritarian constitutionalist regimes as (1) authoritarian dominant-party states that (2) impose sanctions (such as libel judgments) against, but do not arbitrarily arrest, political dissidents; (3) permit "reasonably open discussion and criticism of its policies"; (4) hold "reasonably free and fair elections", without systemic intimidation, but "with close attention to such matters as the drawing of election districts and the creation of party lists to ensure as best it can that it will prevail – and by a substantial margin"; (5) reflect at least occasional responsiveness to public opinion; and (6) create "mechanisms to ensure that the amount of dissent does not exceed the level it regards as desirable." Tushnet cites Singapore as an example of an authoritarian constitutionalist state, and connects the concept to that of hybrid regimes.[28]

Economy

Scholars such as Seymour Lipset,[29] Carles Boix, Susan Stokes,[30] Dietrich Rueschemeyer, Evelyne Stephens and John Stephens[31] argue that economic development increases the likelihood of democratization. Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi argue that while economic development makes democracies less likely to turn authoritarian, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that development causes democratization (turning an authoritarian state into a democracy).[32]

Eva Bellin argues that under certain circumstances the bourgeoise and labor are more likely to favor democratization, but less so under other circumstances.[33] Economic development can boost public support for authoritarian regimes in the short-to-medium term.[34]

According to Michael Albertus, most land reform programs tend to be implemented by authoritarian regimes that subsequently withhold property rights from the beneficiaries of the land reform. Authoritarian regimes do so to gain coercive leverage over rural populations.[35]

Institutions

Authoritarian regimes typically incorporate similar political institutions to that of democratic regimes, such as legislatures and judiciaries, although they may serve different purposes. Democratic regimes are marked by institutions that are essential to economic development and individual freedom, including representative legislatures and competitive political parties.[36][37] Most authoritarian regimes embrace these political structures, but use it in a way that reinforces their power.[36] Authoritarian legislatures, for example, are forums through which leaders may enhance their bases of support, share power, and monitor elites.[38] Additionally, authoritarian party systems are extremely unstable and unconducive to party development, largely due to monopolistic patterns of authority.[39] Judiciaries may be present in authoritarian states where they serve to repress political challengers, institutionalize punishment, and undermine the rule of law.[40]

Democratic and authoritarian arguably differ most prominently in their elections. Democratic elections are generally inclusive, competitive, and fair.[41] In most instances, the elected leader is appointed to act on behalf of the general will. Authoritarian elections, on the other hand, are frequently subject to fraud and extreme constraints on the participation of opposing parties.[39] Autocratic leaders employ tactics like murdering political opposition and paying election monitors to ensure victory.[36][42] Despite this, the proportion of authoritarian regimes with elections and support parties has risen in recent years.[36] This is largely due to the increasing popularity of democracies and electoral autocracies, leading authoritarian regimes to imitate democratic regimes in hopes of receiving foreign aid and dodging criticism.[36][43]

According to a 2018 study, most party-led dictatorships regularly hold popular elections. Prior to the 1990s, most of these elections had no alternative parties or candidates for voters to choose. Since the end of the Cold War, about two-thirds of elections in authoritarian systems allow for some opposition, but the elections are structured in a way to heavily favor the incumbent authoritarian regime.[44] In 2020, almost half of all authoritarian systems had multi-party governments.[45] Cabinet appointments by an authoritarian regime to outsiders can consolidate their rule by dividing the opposition and co-opting outsiders.[45]

Hindrances to free and fair elections in authoritarian systems may include:[44]

  • Control of the media by the authoritarian incumbents.
  • Interference with opposition campaigning.
  • Electoral fraud.
  • Violence against opposition.
  • Large-scale spending by the state in favor of the incumbents.
  • Permitting of some parties, but not others.
  • Prohibitions on opposition parties, but not independent candidates.
  • Allowing competition between candidates within the incumbent party, but not those who are not in the incumbent party.

Interactions with other elites and the masses

The foundations of stable authoritarian rule are that the authoritarian prevents contestation from the masses and other elites. The authoritarian regime may use co-optation or repression (or carrots and sticks) to prevent revolts.[46][47] Authoritarian rule entails a balancing act whereby the ruler has to maintain the support of other elites (frequently through the distribution of state and societal resources) and the support of the public (through distribution of the same resources): the authoritarian rule is at risk if the balancing act is lopsided, as it risks a coup by the elites or an uprising by the mass public.[48][49]

Manipulation of information

Main articles: Political censorship and Propaganda

According to a 2019 study by Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman, authoritarian regimes have over time become less reliant on violence and mass repression to maintain control. The study shows instead that authoritarians have increasingly resorted to manipulation of information as a means of control. Authoritarians increasingly seek to create an appearance of good performance, conceal state repression, and imitate democracy.[50]

While authoritarian regimes invest considerably in propaganda out of a belief that it enhances regime survival, scholars have offered mixed views as to whether propaganda is effective.[51]

Systemic weakness and resilience

Andrew J. Nathan notes that "regime theory holds that authoritarian systems are inherently fragile because of weak legitimacy, overreliance on coercion, over-centralization of decision making, and the predominance of personal power over institutional norms. ... Few authoritarian regimes – be they communist, fascist, corporatist, or personalist – have managed to conduct orderly, peaceful, timely, and stable successions."[52]

Political scientist Theodore M. Vestal writes that authoritarian political systems may be weakened through inadequate responsiveness to either popular or elite demands and that the authoritarian tendency to respond to challenges by exerting tighter control, instead of by adapting, may compromise the legitimacy of an authoritarian state and lead to its collapse.[19]

One exception to this general trend is the endurance of the authoritarian rule of the Chinese Communist Party which has been unusually resilient among authoritarian regimes. Nathan posits that this can be attributed to four factors such as (1) "the increasingly norm-bound nature of its succession politics"; (2) "the increase in meritocratic as opposed to factional considerations in the promotion of political elites"; (3) "the differentiation and functional specialization of institutions within the regime"; and (4) "the establishment of institutions for political participation and appeal that strengthen the CCP's legitimacy among the public at large."[52]

Some scholars have challenged notions that authoritarian states are inherently brittle systems that require repression and propaganda to make people comply with the authoritarian regime. Adam Przeworski has challenged this, noting that while authoritarian regimes do take actions that serve to enhance regime survival, they also engage in mundane everyday governance and their subjects do not hold a posture towards the regime at all moments of their life. He writes, "People in autocracies do not incessantly live under the shadow of dramatic historical events; they lead everyday routine lives."[53] Similarly, Thomas Pepinsky has challenged the common mental image of an authoritarian state as one of grim totalitarianism, desperate hardship, strict censorship, and dictatorial orders of murder, torture and disappearances. He writes, "life in authoritarian states is mostly boring and tolerable."[54]

Violence

Yale University political scientist Milan Svolik argues that violence is a common characteristic of authoritarian systems. Violence tends to be common in authoritarian states because of a lack of independent third parties empowered to settle disputes between the dictator, regime allies, regime soldiers and the masses.[46]

Authoritarians may resort to measures referred to as coup-proofing (structures that make it hard for any small group to seize power). Coup-proofing strategies include strategically placing family, ethnic, and religious groups in the military; creating of an armed force parallel to the regular military; and developing multiple internal security agencies with overlapping jurisdiction that constantly monitor one another.[55] Research shows that some coup-proofing strategies reduce the risk of coups occurring[56][57] and reduce the likelihood of mass protests.[58] However, coup-proofing reduces military effectiveness,[59][60][61][62] and limits the rents that an incumbent can extract.[63] A 2016 study shows that the implementation of succession rules reduce the occurrence of coup attempts.[64] Succession rules are believed to hamper coordination efforts among coup plotters by assuaging elites who have more to gain by patience than by plotting.[64] According to political scientists Curtis Bell and Jonathan Powell, coup attempts in neighboring countries lead to greater coup-proofing and coup-related repression in a region.[65] A 2017 study finds that countries' coup-proofing strategies are heavily influenced by other countries with similar histories.[66] A 2018 study in the Journal of Peace Research found that leaders who survive coup attempts and respond by purging known and potential rivals are likely to have longer tenures as leaders.[67] A 2019 study in Conflict Management and Peace Science found that personalist dictatorships are more likely to take coup-proofing measures than other authoritarian regimes; the authors argue that this is because "personalists are characterized by weak institutions and narrow support bases, a lack of unifying ideologies and informal links to the ruler."[68]

According to a 2019 study, personalist dictatorships are more repressive than other forms of dictatorship.[69]

Typologies

According to Yale professor Juan José Linz there a three main types of political regimes today: democracies, totalitarian regimes and, sitting between these two, authoritarian regimes (with hybrid regimes).[70][71]

According to University of Michigan professor Dan Slater, modern forms of authoritarianism are fundamentally dissimilar from historical forms of nondemocratic rule. He links modern authoritarianism to the era of mass politics, which began with the French Revolution.[72]

Similar terms

  • An authoritarian regime has "a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people".[73] Unlike totalitarian states, they will allow social and economic institutions not under governmental control,[74] and tend to rely on passive mass acceptance rather than active popular support.[75]
  • An Autocracy is a state/government in which one person possesses "unlimited power".
  • A Totalitarian state is "based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures (such as censorship and terrorism)".[76] and are ruled by a single ruling party made up of loyal supporters.[77] Unlike autocracies, which "seek only to gain absolute political power and to outlaw opposition",[78] totalitarian states are characterized by an official ideology, which "seek only to gain absolute political power and to outlaw opposition",[78] and "seek to dominate every aspect of everyone's life as a prelude to world domination".[78]
  • A Fascist state is autocratic and based on a political philosophy/movement, (such as that of the Fascisti of pre-WWII Italy) "that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition".[79]

Subtypes

Several subtypes of authoritarian regimes have been identified by Linz and others.[80] Linz identified the two most basic subtypes as traditional authoritarian regimes and bureaucratic-military authoritarian regimes:

  • Traditional authoritarian regimes are those "in which the ruling authority (generally a single person)" is maintained in power "through a combination of appeals to traditional legitimacy, patron-client ties and repression, which is carried out by an apparatus bound to the ruling authority through personal loyalties." An example is Ethiopia under Haile Selassie I.[80]
    Honoring South Korean President Park Chung-hee in Army Parade at Armed Forces Day on 1 October 1973
  • Bureaucratic-military authoritarian regimes are those "governed by a coalition of military officers and technocrats who act pragmatically (rather than ideologically) within the limits of their bureaucratic mentality."[80] Mark J. Gasiorowski suggests that it is best to distinguish "simple military authoritarian regimes" from "bureaucratic authoritarian regimes" in which "a powerful group of technocrats uses the state apparatus to try to rationalize and develop the economy" such South Korea under Park Chung-hee.[80]

According to Barbara Geddes, there are seven typologies of authoritarian regimes: dominant party regimes, military regime, personalist regimes, monarchies, oligarchic regimes, indirect military regimes, or hybrids of the first three.[81]

Subtypes of authoritarian regimes identified by Linz are corporatist or organic-statistic, racial and ethnic "democracy" and post-totalitarian.[80]

Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliyev and Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro on 25 October 2019

Authoritarian regimes are also sometimes subcategorized by whether they are more personalistic or populist.[80][additional citation(s) needed] Personalistic authoritarian regimes are characterized by arbitrary rule and authority exercised "mainly through patronage networks and coercion rather than through institutions and formal rules."[80] Personalistic authoritarian regimes have been seen in post-colonial Africa. By contrast, populist authoritarian regimes "are mobilizational regimes in which a strong, charismatic, manipulative leader rules through a coalition involving key lower-class groups."[80] Examples include Argentina under Juan Perón,[80] Russia under Vladimir Putin, Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser[80] and Venezuela under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro.[88][89]

A typology of authoritarian regimes by political scientists Brian Lai and Dan Slater includes four categories:

  • machine (oligarchic party dictatorships);
  • bossism (autocratic party dictatorships);
  • juntas (oligarchic military dictatorships); and
  • strongman (autocratic military dictatorships).[4]

Lai and Slater argue that single-party regimes are better than military regimes at developing institutions (e.g. mass mobilization, patronage networks and coordination of elites) that are effective at continuing the regime's incumbency and diminishing domestic challengers; Lai and Slater also argue that military regimes more often initiate military conflicts or undertake other "desperate measures" to maintain control as compared to single-party regimes.[4][3]

John Duckitt suggests a link between authoritarianism and collectivism, asserting that both stand in opposition to individualism.[90] Duckitt writes that both authoritarianism and collectivism submerge individual rights and goals to group goals, expectations and conformities.[91]

According to Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way, authoritarian regimes that are created in social revolutions are far more durable than other kinds of authoritarian regimes.[92]

While the existence of left-wing authoritarianism as a psychological construct has been criticised, a study found evidence for both left-wing and right-wing authoritarianism.[93]

Authoritarianism and democracy

Democracy Index by the Economist Intelligence Unit, 2022.[94] Green countries are democratic, yellow are hybrid regimes, and red are authoritarian governments.

Authoritarianism and democracy are not necessarily fundamental opposites and may be thought of as poles at opposite ends of a scale, so that it is possible for some democracies to possess authoritarian elements, and for an authoritarian system to have democratic elements.[95][unreliable source?][96][97][verification needed] Authoritarian regimes may also be partly responsive to citizen grievances, although this is generally only regarding grievances that do not undermine the stability of the regime.[98][99] An illiberal democracy, or procedural democracy, is distinguished from liberal democracy, or substantive democracy, in that illiberal democracies lack features such as the rule of law, protections for minority groups, an independent judiciary and the real separation of powers.[100][101][102][103]

A further distinction that liberal democracies have rarely made war with one another; research has extended the theory and finds that more democratic countries tend to have few wars (sometimes called militarized interstate disputes) causing fewer battle deaths with one another and that democracies have far fewer civil wars.[104][105]

Research shows that the democratic nations have much less democide or murder by government. Those were also moderately developed nations before applying liberal democratic policies.[106] Research by the World Bank suggests that political institutions are extremely important in determining the prevalence of corruption and that parliamentary systems, political stability and freedom of the press are all associated with lower corruption.[107]

A 2006 study by economist Alberto Abadie has concluded that terrorism is most common in nations with intermediate political freedom. The nations with the least terrorism are the most and least democratic nations, and that "transitions from an authoritarian regime to a democracy may be accompanied by temporary increases in terrorism."[108] Studies in 2013 and 2017 similarly found a nonlinear relationship between political freedom and terrorism, with the most terrorist attacks occurring in partial democracies and the fewest in "strict autocracies and full-fledged democracies."[109] A 2018 study by Amichai Magen demonstrated that liberal democracies and polyarchies not only suffer fewer terrorist attacks as compared to other regime types, but also suffer fewer casualties in terrorist attacks as compared to other regime types, which may be attributed to higher-quality democracies' responsiveness to their citizens' demands, including "the desire for physical safety", resulting in "investment in intelligence, infrastructure protection, first responders, social resilience, and specialized medical care" which averts casualties.[109] Magen also stated that terrorism in closed autocracies sharply increased starting in 2013.[109]

Within national democratic governments, there may be subnational authoritarian enclaves. A prominent examples of this includes the Southern United States after Reconstruction, as well as areas of contemporary Argentina and Mexico.[110]

Competitive authoritarian regimes

Another type of authoritarian regime is the competitive authoritarian regime, a type of civilian regime that arose in the post-Cold War era. In a competitive authoritarian regime, "formal democratic institutions exist and are widely viewed as the primary means of gaining power, but ... incumbents' abuse of the state places them at a significant advantage vis-à-vis their opponents."[111][112] The term was coined by Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way in their 2010 book of the same name to discuss a type of hybrid regime that emerged during and after the Cold War.[111][113]

Competitive authoritarian regimes differ from fully authoritarian regimes in that elections are regularly held, the opposition can openly operate without a high risk of exile or imprisonment and "democratic procedures are sufficiently meaningful for opposition groups to take them seriously as arenas through which to contest for power."[111] Competitive authoritarian regimes lack one or more of the three characteristics of democracies such as free elections (i.e. elections untainted by substantial fraud or voter intimidation); protection of civil liberties (i.e. the freedom of speech, press and association) and an even playing field (in terms of access to resources, the media and legal recourse).[114]

Authoritarianism and fascism

Authoritarianism is considered a core concept of fascism[115][116][117][118] and scholars agree that a fascist regime is foremost an authoritarian form of government, although not all authoritarian regimes are fascist. While authoritarianism is a defining characteristic of fascism, scholars argue that more distinguishing traits are needed to make an authoritarian regime fascist.[119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127]

Authoritarianism and totalitarianism

Part of a series on
Integralism
Vendéen Sacred Heart
Principles
Variants
Thinkers
Politicians
Works
Organizations
Related
Benito Mussolini, the founder of Italian Fascism, called his regime the "Totalitarian State": "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State."[128]

Totalitarianism is a label used by various political scientists to characterize the most tyrannical strain of authoritarian systems; in which the ruling elite, often subservient to a dictator, exert near-total control of the social, political, economic, cultural and religious aspects of society in the territories under its governance.[129]

Linz distinguished new forms of authoritarianism from personalistic dictatorships and totalitarian states, taking Francoist Spain as an example. Unlike personalistic dictatorships, new forms of authoritarianism have institutionalized representation of a variety of actors (in Spain's case, including the military, the Catholic Church, Falange, monarchists, technocrats and others). Unlike totalitarian states, the regime relies on passive mass acceptance rather than popular support.[75] According to Juan Linz the distinction between an authoritarian regime and a totalitarian one is that an authoritarian regime seeks to suffocate politics and political mobilization while totalitarianism seeks to control and use them.[70] Authoritarianism primarily differs from totalitarianism in that social and economic institutions exist that are not under governmental control. Building on the work of Yale political scientist Juan Linz, Paul C. Sondrol of the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs has examined the characteristics of authoritarian and totalitarian dictators and organized them in a chart:[74]

Totalitarianism Authoritarianism
Charisma High Low
Role conception Leader as function Leader as individual
Ends of power Public Private
Corruption Low High
Official ideology Yes No
Limited pluralism No Yes
Legitimacy Yes No

Sondrol argues that while both authoritarianism and totalitarianism are forms of autocracy, they differ in three key dichotomies:

(1) Unlike their bland and generally unpopular authoritarian brethren, totalitarian dictators develop a charismatic "mystique" and a mass-based, pseudo-democratic interdependence with their followers via the conscious manipulation of a prophetic image.

(2) Concomitant role conceptions differentiate totalitarians from authoritarians. Authoritarians view themselves as individual beings largely content to control and often maintain the status quo. Totalitarian self-conceptions are largely teleological. The tyrant is less a person than an indispensable function to guide and reshape the universe.

(3) Consequently, the utilisation of power for personal aggrandizement is more evident among authoritarians than totalitarians. Lacking the binding appeal of ideology, authoritarians support their rule by a mixture of instilling fear and granting rewards to loyal collaborators, engendering a kleptocracy.[74]

Kim Il Sung, founder of North Korea, established an authoritarian regime which was modeled after other totalitarian countries.[130]

Compared to totalitarianism, "the authoritarian state still maintains a certain distinction between state and society. It is only concerned with political power and as long as that is not contested it gives society a certain degree of liberty. Totalitarianism, on the other hand, invades private life and asphyxiates it."[131] Another distinction is that "authoritarianism is not animated by utopian ideals in the way totalitarianism is. It does not attempt to change the world and human nature."[131] Carl Joachim Friedrich writes that "a totalist ideology, a party reinforced by a secret police, and monopoly control of ... industrial mass society" are the three features of totalitarian regimes that distinguish them from other autocracies.[131]

Greg Yudin, a professor of political philosophy at the Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences, argues "political passivity and civic disengagement" are "key features" of authoritarianism, while totalitarianism relies on "mass mobilization, terror and homogeneity of beliefs".[132]

Economic effects

In 2010, Dani Rodrik wrote that democracies outperform autocracies in terms of long-term economic growth, economic stability, adjustments to external economic shocks, human capital investment, and economic equality.[133] A 2019 study by Daron Acemoglu, Suresh Naidu, Pascual Restrepo, and James A. Robinson found that democracy increases GDP per capita by about 20 percent over the long-term.[134] According to Amartya Sen, no functioning liberal democracy has ever suffered a large-scale famine.[135] Studies suggest that several health indicators (life expectancy and infant and maternal mortality) have a stronger and more significant association with democracy than they have with GDP per capita, size of the public sector or income inequality.[136]

One of the few areas that some scholars have theorized that autocracies may have an advantage, is in industrialization.[137] In the 20th century, Seymour Martin Lipset argued that low-income authoritarian regimes have certain technocratic "efficiency-enhancing advantages" over low-income democracies that gives authoritarian regimes an advantage in economic development.[138] By contrast, Morton H. Halperin, Joseph T. Siegle and Michael M. Weinstein (2005) argue that democracies "realize superior development performance" over authoritarianism, pointing out that poor democracies are more likely to have steadier economic growth and less likely to experience economic and humanitarian catastrophes (such as refugee crises) than authoritarian regimes; that civil liberties in democracies act as a curb on corruption and misuse of resources; and that democracies are more adaptable than authoritarian regimes.[138]

Pre-World War II

Authoritarian rule before World War II includes short-lived dictatorships and has been claimed to be understudied.[139]

Post-World War II anti-authoritarianism

Main article: Anti-authoritarianism

Both World War II (ending in 1945) and the Cold War (ending in 1991) resulted in the replacement of authoritarian regimes by either democratic regimes or regimes that were less authoritarian.

World War II saw the defeat of the Axis powers by the Allied powers. All the Axis powers (Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan) had totalitarian or authoritarian governments, and two of the three were replaced by governments based on democratic constitutions. The Allied powers were an alliance of Democratic states and (later) the Communist Soviet Union. At least in Western Europe the initial post-war era embraced pluralism and freedom of expression in areas that had been under control of authoritarian regimes. The memory of fascism and Nazism was denigrated. The new Federal Republic of Germany banned its expression. In reaction to the centralism of the Nazi state, the new constitution of West Germany (Federal Republic of Germany) exercised "separation of powers" and placed "law enforcement firmly in the hands" of the sixteen Länder or states of the republic, not with the federal German government, at least not at first.[140]

Culturally there was also a strong sense of anti-authoritarianism based on anti-fascism in Western Europe. This was attributed to the active resistance from occupation and to fears arising from the development of superpowers.[141] Anti-authoritarianism also became associated with countercultural and bohemian movements such as the Beat Generation in the 1950s,[142] the hippies in the 1960s[143] and punks in the 1970s.[144]

In South America, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, Chile and Uruguay moved away from dictatorships to democracy between 1982 and 1990.[145]

With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the Soviet Union in 1991, the other authoritarian/totalitarian "half" of the Allied Powers of World War II collapsed. This led not so much to revolt against authority in general, but to the belief that authoritarian states (and state control of economies) were outdated.[146] The idea that "liberal democracy was the final form toward which all political striving was directed"[147] became very popular in Western countries and was celebrated in Francis Fukuyama's book The End of History and the Last Man.[147] According to Charles H. Fairbanks Jr., "all the new states that stumbled out of the ruins of the Soviet bloc, except Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, seemed indeed to be moving towards democracy in the early 1990s" as were the countries of East Central Europe and the Balkans.[148]

In December 2010, the Arab Spring arose in response to unrest over economic stagnation but also in opposition to oppressive authoritarian regimes, first in Tunisia, and spreading to Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Bahrain and elsewhere. Regimes were toppled in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and partially in Yemen while other countries saw riots, civil wars or insurgencies. Most Arab Spring revolutions failed to lead to enduring democratization. In the decade following the Arab Spring, of the countries in which an autocracy was toppled in the Arab spring, only Tunisia had become a genuine democracy; Egypt backslid to return to a military-run authoritarian state, while Libya, Syria and Yemen experienced devastating civil wars.[149][150]

21st-century authoritarian resurgence

Main article: Democratic backsliding

Since 2005, observers noted what some have called a "democratic recession",[147][151] although some such as Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way have disputed that there was a significant democratic decline before 2013.[151] In 2018, the Freedom House declared that from 2006 to 2018 "113 countries" around the world showed "a net decline" in "political rights and civil liberties" while "only 62" experienced "a net improvement."[152] Its 2020 report marked the fourteenth consecutive year of declining scores.[153] By 2020, all countries marked as "not free" by Freedom House had also developed practices of transnational repression, aiming to police and control dissent beyond state borders.[154]

International trends in
democracy/authoritarianism
countries becoming
more democratic 		countries becoming
more authoritarian
late 1990s 72 3
2021 15 33
source: V-Dem[155][156]

Writing in 2018, American political journalist David Frum stated: "The hopeful world of the very late 20th century – the world of NAFTA and an expanding NATO; of the World Wide Web 1.0 and liberal interventionism; of the global spread of democracy under leaders such as Václav Havel and Nelson Mandela – now looks battered and delusive."[157]

Michael Ignatieff wrote that Fukuyama's idea of liberalism vanquishing authoritarianism "now looks like a quaint artifact of a vanished unipolar moment"[147] and Fukuyama himself expressed concern.[146] By 2018, only one Arab Spring uprising (that in Tunisia) resulted in a transition to constitutional democratic governance[158] and a "resurgence of authoritarianism and Islamic extremism" in the region[159] was dubbed the Arab Winter.[160][161][162][163][164]

Various explanations have been offered for the new spread of authoritarianism. They include the downside of globalization, and the subsequent rise of populism and neo-nationalism,[165] and the success of the Beijing Consensus, i.e. the authoritarian model of the People's Republic of China.[166] In countries such as the United States, factors blamed for the growth of authoritarianism include the financial crisis of 2007–2008 and slower real wage growth[167][unreliable source?] as well as social media's elimination of so-called "gatekeepers" of knowledge – the equivalent of disintermediation in economics – so that a large fraction of the population considers to be opinion what were once "viewed as verifiable facts" – including everything from the danger of global warming to the preventing the spread of disease through vaccination – and considers to be fact what are actually only unproven fringe opinions.[168]

In United States politics, white supremacist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazi skinheads, and adherents of the Christian Identity, ideology have long operated as a loose network. In the internet age, far-right extremists throughout the U.S. and much of the West have consolidated further into a movement known as the Alt-Right, which has inspired numerous terrorist attacks while at the same time increasing the mainstream appeal of white supremacism.[169] According to Azani et al.:[169]

The current resurgence of far-right ideology may be explained by a variety of factors, primarily, the strategic adjustment of white supremacists to soften overtly racist rhetoric in order to appeal to a wider audience. This new discourse attempts to normalize white supremacy, developing intellectual and theoretical foundations for racism based on the notion that the white race is at risk of eradication, threatened by the growing population of immigrants and people of colour. The pre-existing, offensive white supremacist, fascist and neo-Nazi ideas that drove the white power movement of the twentieth century were thus rebranded through a new innocuous defensive frame of white victimhood. As such, the new strategy of racist rhetoric has allowed the movement to co-opt mainstream political debates surrounding immigration and globalization, drawing large audiences through a deliberate obfuscation of the underlying ideology.

Far-right extremism has played a key role in promoting the Great Replacement and White genocide conspiracy theories, and an "acceleration" of racial conflict through violent means such as assassinations, murders, terrorist attacks, and societal collapse in order to achieve the building of a white ethnostate.[169] While many contemporary extreme far-right groups eschew the hierarchical structure of other authoritarian political organizations, they often explicitly promote cultural authoritarianism alongside xenophobia, racism, antisemitism, homophobia and misogyny, as well as authoritarian government interventions against perceived societal problems.[169]

Examples

There is no one consensus definition of authoritarianism, but several annual measurements are attempted, including Freedom House's annual Freedom in the World report. Some countries such as Venezuela, among others, that are currently or historically recognized as authoritarian did not become authoritarian upon taking power or fluctuated between an authoritarian, flawed democracy, and hybrid regime due to periods of democratic backsliding or democratization. Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia are often regarded as the most infamous examples of "totalitarian" systems. Some countries such as China and various fascist regimes have also been characterized as totalitarian, with some periods being depicted as more authoritarian, or totalitarian, than others.

Current

States characterized as authoritarian, are typically not rated as democracies by The Economist Democracy Index, or as 'free' by Freedom House's Freedom in the World index, and do not reach a high score at V-Dem Democracy Indices. Contemporary examples of totalitarian states include the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.[170]

See also

References

Citations

  1. ^ Kalu, Kalu N. (2019). A Functional Theory of Government, Law, and Institutions. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 161–. ISBN 978-1-4985-8703-7. OCLC 1105988740.
  2. ^ a b Cerutti, Furio (2017). Conceptualizing Politics: An Introduction to Political Philosophy. Routledge. p. 17. Political scientists have outlined elaborated typologies of authoritarianism, from which it is not easy to draw a generally accepted definition; it seems that its main features are the non-acceptance of conflict and plurality as normal elements of politics, the will to preserve the status quo and prevent change by keeping all political dynamics under close control by a strong central power, and lastly, the erosion of the rule of law, the division of powers, and democratic voting procedures.
  3. ^ a b Ezrow, Natasha M.; Frantz, Erica (2011). Dictators and Dictatorships: Understanding Authoritarian Regimes and Their Leaders. Continuum. p. 17.
  4. ^ a b c Lai, Brian; Slater, Dan (2006). "Institutions of the Offensive: Domestic Sources of Dispute Initiation in Authoritarian Regimes, 1950–1992". American Journal of Political Science. 50 (1): 113–126. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00173.x. JSTOR 3694260.
  5. ^ Levitsky, Steven; Way, Lucan A. (2010). Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War. Problems of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511781353. ISBN 978-0-521-88252-1.
  6. ^ Diamond, Larry (2002). "Elections Without Democracy: Thinking About Hybrid Regimes". Journal of Democracy. 13 (2): 21–35. doi:10.1353/jod.2002.0025. ISSN 1086-3214. S2CID 154815836.
  7. ^ Gunitsky, Seva (2015). "Lost in the Gray Zone: Competing Measures of Democracy in the Former Soviet Republics". Ranking the World: Grading States as a Tool of Global Governance. Cambridge University Press: 112–150. doi:10.1017/CBO9781316161555.006. ISBN 978-1-107-09813-8. SSRN 2506195.
  8. ^ Richard Shorten, Modernism and Totalitarianism: Rethinking the Intellectual Sources of Nazism and Stalinism, 1945 to the Present Archived 2020-01-09 at the Wayback Machine (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), p. 256 (note 67): "For a long time the authoritative definition of authoritarianism was that of Juan J. Linz."
  9. ^ Juan J. Linz, "An Authoritarian Regime: The Case of Spain," in Erik Allardt and Yrjö Littunen, eds., Cleavages, Ideologies, and Party Systems: Contributions to Comparative Political Sociology (Helsinki: Transactions of the Westermarck Society), pp. 291–342. Reprinted in Erik Allardt & Stine Rokkan, eds., Mas Politics: Studies in Political Sociology (New York: Free Press, 1970), pp. 251–283, 374–381.[ISBN missing]
  10. ^ Gretchen Casper, Fragile Democracies: The Legacies of Authoritarian Rule. Archived 2020-01-09 at the Wayback Machine (University of Pittsburgh Press, 1995), pp. 40–50 (citing Linz 1964).[ISBN missing]
  11. ^ Svolik, Milan W. (2012). The Politics of Authoritarian Rule. Cambridge University Press. pp. 22–23. Archived from the original on 21 October 2019. Retrieved 21 October 2019. I follow Przeworski et al. (2000), Boix (2003), and Cheibub et al. (2010) in defining a dictatorship as an independent country that fails to satisfy at least one of the following two criteria for democracy: (1) free and competitive legislative elections and (2) an executive that is elected either directly in free and competitive presidential elections or indirectly by a legislature in parliamentary systems. Throughout this book, I use the terms dictatorship and authoritarian regime interchangeably and refer to the heads of these regimes' governments as simply dictators or authoritarian leaders, regardless of their formal title.
  12. ^ Geddes, Barbara; Wright, Joseph; Frantz, Erica (2014). "Autocratic Breakdown and Regime Transitions: A New Data Set". Perspectives on Politics. 12 (2): 313–331. doi:10.1017/S1537592714000851. ISSN 1537-5927. S2CID 145784357.
  13. ^ Gehlbach, Scott; Sonin, Konstantin; Svolik, Milan W. (2016). "Formal Models of Nondemocratic Politics". Annual Review of Political Science. 19 (1): 565–584. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-042114-014927. ISSN 1094-2939. S2CID 143064525.
  14. ^ Cheibub, José Antonio; Gandhi, Jennifer; Vreeland, James Raymond (2010). "Democracy and dictatorship revisited". Public Choice. 143 (1/2): 67–101. doi:10.1007/s11127-009-9491-2. ISSN 0048-5829. JSTOR 40661005. S2CID 45234838.
  15. ^ Svolik, Milan W. (2012). The Politics of Authoritarian Rule. Cambridge University Press. p. 20. Archived from the original on 21 October 2019. Retrieved 21 October 2019. More demanding criteria may require that governments respect certain civil liberties – such as the freedom of religion (Schmitter and Karl 1991; Zakaria 1997) – or that the incumbent government and the opposition alternate in power at least once after the first seemingly free election (Huntington 1993; Przeworski et al. 2000; Cheibib et al. 2010).
  16. ^ Svolik, Milan W. (2012). The Politics of Authoritarian Rule. Cambridge University Press. pp. 8, 12, 22, 25, 88, 117. Archived from the original on 21 October 2019. Retrieved 21 October 2019.
  17. ^ Svolik, Milan W. (2012). The Politics of Authoritarian Rule. Cambridge University Press. p. 25. Archived from the original on 21 October 2019. Retrieved 21 October 2019.
  18. ^ a b Geddes, Barbara (2024), Wolf, Anne (ed.), "How New Dictatorships Begin", The Oxford Handbook of Authoritarian Politics, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198871996.013.3, ISBN 978-0-19-887199-6
  19. ^ a b c d e f Theodore M. Vesta, Ethiopia: A Post-Cold War African State. Greenwood, 1999, p. 17.
  20. ^ Przeworski, Adam (1991). Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Cambridge University Press. p. 58. ISBN 978-0-521-42335-9.
  21. ^ Norris, Pippa; Inglehart, Ronald (2018). Cultural backlash: Trump, Brexit, and the rise of authoritarian-populism. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. p. 14. ISBN 978-1-108-42607-7.
  22. ^ Michael Albertus & Victor Menaldo, "The Political Economy of Autocratic Constitutions", in Constitutions in Authoritarian Regimes (eds. Tom Ginsburg & Alberto Simpser: Cambridge University Press, 2014), p. 80.
  23. ^ Tom Ginsburg & Alberto Simpser, Constitutions in Authoritarian Regimes (Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp. 3–10.
  24. ^ Michael Albertus & Victor Menaldo, Constitutions in Authoritarian Regimes (eds. Tom Ginsburg & Alberto Simpser: Cambridge University Press, 2014), p. 54.
  25. ^ Davis S. Law & Mila Versteeg, "Constitutional Variation Among Strains of Authoritarianism" in Constitutions in Authoritarian Regimes (eds. Tom Ginsburg & Alberto Simpser: Cambridge University Press, 2014), p. 173.
  26. ^ Michael Albertus & Victor Menaldo, Constitutions in Authoritarian Regimes (eds. Tom Ginsburg & Alberto Simpser: Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp. 54, 80.
  27. ^ "Constitution of 1918". Encyclopedia.com. Retrieved 30 May 2022.
  28. ^ a b c Tushnet, Mark (January 2015). "Authoritarian Constitutionalism" Archived 2020-01-17 at the Wayback Machine. Cornell Law Review. Cambridge University Press. 100 (2): 36–50. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107252523.004.
  29. ^ Lipset, Seymour Martin (1959). "Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy". The American Political Science Review. 53 (1): 69–105. doi:10.2307/1951731. ISSN 0003-0554. JSTOR 1951731. S2CID 53686238.
  30. ^ Boix, Carles; Stokes, Susan C. (July 2003). "Endogenous Democratization". World Politics. 55 (4): 517–549. doi:10.1353/wp.2003.0019. ISSN 0043-8871. S2CID 18745191.
  31. ^ Capitalist Development and Democracy. University Of Chicago Press. 1992.
  32. ^ Przeworski, Adam; Limongi, Fernando (1997). "Modernization: Theories and Facts". World Politics. 49 (2): 155–183. doi:10.1353/wp.1997.0004. ISSN 0043-8871. JSTOR 25053996. S2CID 5981579.
  33. ^ Bellin, Eva (January 2000). "Contingent Democrats: Industrialists, Labor, and Democratization in Late-Developing Countries". World Politics. 52 (2): 175–205. doi:10.1017/S0043887100002598. ISSN 1086-3338. S2CID 54044493.
  34. ^ Magaloni, Beatriz (2006). Voting for Autocracy: Hegemonic Party Survival and its Demise in Mexico. Cambridge Core. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511510274. ISBN 978-0-511-51027-4. Archived from the original on 5 April 2020. Retrieved 17 December 2019.
  35. ^ Albertus, Michael (2021). Property without Rights: Origins and Consequences of the Property Rights Gap. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108891950. ISBN 978-1-108-83523-7. S2CID 241385526.
  36. ^ a b c d e Frantz, Erica (4 September 2018). Authoritarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/wentk/9780190880194.003.0005. ISBN 978-0-19-088019-4. Retrieved 3 March 2023.
  37. ^ Pei, Minxin. "Economic Institutions, Democracy, and Development". Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Retrieved 3 March 2023.
  38. ^ Bonvecchi, Alejandro; Simison, Emilia (1 July 2017). "Legislative Institutions and Performance in Authoritarian Regimes". Comparative Politics. 49 (4): 521–544. doi:10.5129/001041517821273099. hdl:11336/76721. Retrieved 3 March 2023.
  39. ^ a b Golosov, Grigorii V. (1 January 2013). "Authoritarian Party Systems: Patterns of Emergence, Sustainability and Survival". Comparative Sociology. 12 (5): 617–644. doi:10.1163/15691330-12341274. Retrieved 3 March 2023.
  40. ^ Shen-Bayh, Fiona Feiang (2022). Undue Process: Persecution and Punishment in Autocratic Courts. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781009197151. ISBN 978-1-009-19713-7.
  41. ^ Kirkpatrick, Jeane J. (1984). "Democratic Elections and Government". World Affairs. 147 (2): 61–69. JSTOR 20672013. Retrieved 3 March 2023.
  42. ^ Magaloni, Beatriz (21 June 2010). "The Game of Electoral Fraud and the Ousting of Authoritarian Rule". American Journal of Political Science. 54 (3): 751–765. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00458.x. Retrieved 3 March 2023.
  43. ^ Herre, Bastian; Ortiz-Ospina, Esteban (15 March 2013). "Democracy". Our World in Data. Retrieved 3 March 2023.
  44. ^ a b Geddes, Barbara; Wright, Joseph; Frantz, Erica (2018). How Dictatorships Work. Cambridge University Press. pp. 137–140. doi:10.1017/9781316336182. ISBN 978-1-316-33618-2. S2CID 226899229.
  45. ^ a b Bokobza, Laure; Nyrup, Jacob (2024). "Authoritarian multiparty governments". Democratization. 31 (8): 1669–1694. doi:10.1080/13510347.2024.2338858. ISSN 1351-0347. PMC 11601049. PMID 39611165.
  46. ^ a b Svolik, Milan W. (2012). The Politics of Authoritarian Rule. Cambridge University Press. pp. 2, 15, 23. Archived from the original on 21 October 2019. Retrieved 21 October 2019.
  47. ^ Albertus, Michael; Fenner, Sofia; Slater, Dan (2018). Coercive Distribution by Michael Albertus. doi:10.1017/9781108644334. ISBN 978-1-108-64433-4. Archived from the original on 25 April 2020. Retrieved 5 November 2019. {{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help)
  48. ^ Frye, Timothy (2021). Weak Strongman: The Limits of Power in Putin's Russia. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-21698-0.
  49. ^ Mesquita, Bruce Bueno de; Smith, Alastair; Morrow, James D.; Siverson, Randolph M. (2005). The Logic of Political Survival. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-52440-7.
  50. ^ Guriev, Sergei; Treisman, Daniel (2019). "Informational Autocrats". Journal of Economic Perspectives. 33 (4): 100–127. doi:10.1257/jep.33.4.100. ISSN 0895-3309.
  51. ^ Rosenfeld, Bryn; Wallace, Jeremy (2024). "Information Politics and Propaganda in Authoritarian Societies". Annual Review of Political Science. 27 (1): 263–281. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-041322-035951. ISSN 1094-2939. S2CID 267602602.
  52. ^ a b Andrew J. Nathan, "Authoritarian Resilience". Archived 2018-10-05 at the Wayback Machine, Journal of Democracy, 14.1 (2003), pp. 6–17.
  53. ^ Przeworski, Adam (2023). "Formal Models of Authoritarian Regimes: A Critique". Perspectives on Politics. 21 (3): 979–988. doi:10.1017/S1537592722002067. ISSN 1537-5927. S2CID 252446987.
  54. ^ Pepinsky, Thomas (9 January 2017). "Life in authoritarian states is mostly boring and tolerable". Vox.
  55. ^ Quinlivan, James T. (1999). "Coup-Proofing: Its Practice and Consequences in the Middle East". International Security. 42 (2): 131–165. doi:10.1162/016228899560202. S2CID 57563395. Archived from the original on 21 October 2019. Retrieved 21 October 2019.
  56. ^ Powell, Jonathan (1 December 2012). "Determinants of the Attempting and Outcome of Coups d'état". Journal of Conflict Resolution. 56 (6): 1017–1040. doi:10.1177/0022002712445732. ISSN 0022-0027. S2CID 54646102.
  57. ^ Braithwaite, Jessica Maves; Sudduth, Jun Koga (1 January 2016). "Military purges and the recurrence of civil conflict". Research & Politics. 3 (1): 2053168016630730. doi:10.1177/2053168016630730. ISSN 2053-1680.
  58. ^ Chin, John; Song, Wonjun; Wright, Joseph (2022). "Personalization of Power and Mass Uprisings in Dictatorships". British Journal of Political Science. 53 (1): 25–44. doi:10.1017/S0007123422000114. ISSN 0007-1234. S2CID 249976554.
  59. ^ Talmadge, Caitlin (2015). The Dictator's Army: Battlefield Effectiveness in Authoritarian Regimes. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-1-5017-0175-7.
  60. ^ Narang, Vipin; Talmadge, Caitlin (31 January 2017). "Civil-military Pathologies and Defeat in War". Journal of Conflict Resolution. 62 (7): 1379–1405. doi:10.1177/0022002716684627. S2CID 151897298.
  61. ^ Brown, Cameron S.; Fariss, Christopher J.; McMahon, R. Blake (1 January 2016). "Recouping after Coup-Proofing: Compromised Military Effectiveness and Strategic Substitution". International Interactions. 42 (1): 1–30. doi:10.1080/03050629.2015.1046598. ISSN 0305-0629. S2CID 214653333.(subscription required)
  62. ^ Bausch, Andrew W. (2017). "Coup-proofing and Military Inefficiencies: An Experiment". International Interactions. 44 (1): 1–32. doi:10.1080/03050629.2017.1289938. ISSN 0305-0629. S2CID 157891333.
  63. ^ Leon, Gabriel (1 April 2014). "Soldiers or politicians? Institutions, conflict, and the military's role in politics". Oxford Economic Papers. 66 (2): 533–556. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.1000.7058. doi:10.1093/oep/gpt024. ISSN 0030-7653.
  64. ^ a b Frantz, Erica; Stein, Elizabeth A. (4 July 2016). "Countering Coups Leadership Succession Rules in Dictatorships". Comparative Political Studies. 50 (7): 935–962. doi:10.1177/0010414016655538. ISSN 0010-4140. S2CID 157014887.
  65. ^ Bell, Curtis; Powell, Jonathan (30 July 2016). "Will Turkey's coup attempt prompt others nearby?". Washington Post. Archived from the original on 21 October 2019. Retrieved 21 October 2019.
  66. ^ Böhmelt, Tobias; Ruggeri, Andrea; Pilster, Ulrich (1 April 2017). "Counterbalancing, Spatial Dependence, and Peer Group Effects*" (PDF). Political Science Research and Methods. 5 (2): 221–239. doi:10.1017/psrm.2015.55. hdl:20.500.11850/130560. ISSN 2049-8470. S2CID 56130442. Archived (PDF) from the original on 22 September 2017. Retrieved 21 October 2019.
  67. ^ Easton, Malcolm R.; Siverson, Randolph M. (2018). "Leader survival and purges after a failed coup d'état". Journal of Peace Research. 55 (5): 596–608. doi:10.1177/0022343318763713. S2CID 117585945.
  68. ^ Escribà-Folch, Abel; Böhmelt, Tobias; Pilster, Ulrich (9 April 2019). "Authoritarian regimes and civil–military relations: Explaining counterbalancing in autocracies". Conflict Management and Peace Science. 37 (5): 559–579. doi:10.1177/0738894219836285. hdl:10230/46774. ISSN 0738-8942. S2CID 159416397.
  69. ^ Frantz, Erica; Kendall-Taylor, Andrea; Wright, Joseph; Xu, Xu (2020). "Personalization of Power and Repression in Dictatorships". The Journal of Politics. 82: 372–377. doi:10.1086/706049. ISSN 0022-3816. S2CID 203199813.
  70. ^ a b Juan José Linz (2000). Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Lynne Rienner Publisher. p. 143. ISBN 978-1-55587-890-0. OCLC 1172052725.
  71. ^ Michie, Jonathan, ed. (2014). Reader's Guide to the Social Sciences. Routledge. p. 95. ISBN 978-1-135-93226-8.
  72. ^ Slater, Dan (2024), "Authoritarianism's Historical Entanglements", The Oxford Handbook of Authoritarian Politics, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198871996.013.2, ISBN 978-0-19-887199-6
  73. ^ "Definition of authoritarian". Merriam Webster. Retrieved 11 April 2022.
  74. ^ a b c Sondrol, P. C. (2009). "Totalitarian and Authoritarian Dictators: A Comparison of Fidel Castro and Alfredo Stroessner". Journal of Latin American Studies. 23 (3): 599. doi:10.1017/S0022216X00015868. S2CID 144333167.
  75. ^ a b Todd Landman, Studying Human Rights (Routledge, 2003), p. 71 (citing Linz 1964 and others).
  76. ^ "Definition of totalitarian". Merriam Webster. Retrieved 11 April 2022.
  77. ^ "Totalitarianism and autocracy". Britannica. Retrieved 11 April 2022.
  78. ^ a b c (according to Hannah Arendt)
  79. ^ "Definition of fascism". Merriam Webster. Retrieved 11 April 2022.
  80. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Mark J. Gasiorowski, The Political Regimes Project, in On Measuring Democracy: Its Consequences and Concomitants (ed. Alex Inketes), 2006, pp. 110–111.
  81. ^ Geddes, Barbara; Wright, Joseph; Frantz, Erica (2014). "Autocratic Breakdown and Regime Transitions: A New Data Set". Perspectives on Politics. 12 (2): 313–331. doi:10.1017/S1537592714000851. ISSN 1537-5927. S2CID 145784357.
  82. ^ Heinrich, Andreas; Pleines, Heiko (2018). "The Meaning of 'Limited Pluralism' in Media Reporting under Authoritarian Rule". Politics and Governance. 6 (2): 103. doi:10.17645/pag.v6i2.1238.
  83. ^ O'Brien, Maire (1998). "Dissent and the emergence of civil society in post-totalitarian China". Journal of Contemporary China. 7 (17): 153–166. doi:10.1080/10670569808724310.
  84. ^ Lai, H. H. (2006). "Religious policies in post-totalitarian China: Maintaining political monopoly over a reviving society". Journal of Chinese Political Science. 11: 55–77. doi:10.1007/BF02877033. S2CID 154504959.
  85. ^ Mozur, Paul; Krolik, Aaron (17 December 2019). "A Surveillance Net Blankets China's Cities, Giving Police Vast Powers". New York Times. Archived from the original on 3 March 2020. Retrieved 27 February 2020.
  86. ^ Qiang, Xiao (21 February 2018). "The rise of China as a digital totalitarian state". Washington Post. Archived from the original on 28 March 2020. Retrieved 27 February 2020.
  87. ^ Clarke, Michael (10 March 2018). "In Xinjiang, China's 'Neo-Totalitarian' Turn Is Already a Reality". The Diplomat. Archived from the original on 27 February 2020. Retrieved 27 February 2020.
  88. ^ Juan de Onis, "After Chavez, Authoritarianism Still Threatens Latin America"[usurped], World Affairs (May 15, 2013): "the followers of the late President Hugo Chávez continue to apply the playbook of authoritarian populism throughout Latin America in their pursuit of more power...one of the Mercosur partners are challenging the basic political practices of authoritarian populism implanted in Venezuela."
  89. ^ Kurt Weyland, "Latin America's Authoritarian Drift: The Threat from the Populist Left". Archived 2018-11-25 at the Wayback Machine, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 23, Issue 3 (July 2013), pp. 18–32.
  90. ^ Duckitt, J. (1989). "Authoritarianism and Group Identification: A New View of an Old Construct". Political Psychology. 10 (1): 63–84. doi:10.2307/3791588. JSTOR 3791588.
  91. ^ Kemmelmeier, M.; Burnstein, E.; Krumov, K.; Genkova, P.; Kanagawa, C.; Hirshberg, M. S.; Erb, H. P.; Wieczorkowska, G.; Noels, K. A. (2003). "Individualism, Collectivism, and Authoritarianism in Seven Societies". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 34 (3): 304. doi:10.1177/0022022103034003005. S2CID 32361036.
  92. ^ Levitsky, Steven; Way, Lucan (2022). Revolution and Dictatorship: The Violent Origins of Durable Authoritarianism. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-16952-1.
  93. ^ Conway III, Lucian Gideon; Zubrod, Alivia; Chan, Linus; McFarland, James D.; Van de Vliert, Evert (8 February 2023). "Is the myth of left-wing authoritarianism itself a myth?". Frontiers in Psychology. 13. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1041391. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 9944136. PMID 36846476.
  94. ^ "EIU Democracy Index 2020 – World Democracy Report". Economist Intelligence Unit. Archived from the original on 3 March 2021. Retrieved 7 March 2021.
  95. ^ Frantz, Erica (2018). "Authoritarian Politics: Trends and Debates". Politics and Governance. 6 (2): 87–89. doi:10.17645/pag.v6i2.1498 – via Cogitatio Press.
  96. ^ Koesel, Karrie J.; Bunce, Valerie; Weiss, Jessica Chen (2020). "In South Carolina, Democrats debated when a dictator is really a dictator. So what's the answer?". The Washington Post (Monkey Cage). Archived from the original on 27 February 2020. Retrieved 27 February 2020.
  97. ^ Koesel, Karrie; Bunce, Valerie; Weiss, Jessica (2020). Citizens and the State in Authoritarian Regimes: Comparing China and Russia. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-009349-5. Archived from the original on 27 February 2020. Retrieved 27 February 2020.
  98. ^ Truex, Rory (2016). Making Autocracy Work: Representation and Responsiveness in Modern China. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9781316771785. ISBN 978-1-107-17243-2.
  99. ^ Lueders, Hans (2022). "Electoral Responsiveness in Closed Autocracies: Evidence from Petitions in the former German Democratic Republic". American Political Science Review. 116 (3): 827–842. doi:10.1017/S0003055421001386. ISSN 0003-0554. S2CID 245452279.
  100. ^ Thomas H. Henriksen, American Power after the Berlin Wall (Palgrave Macmillan: 2007), p. 199: "experts emphasize that elections alone, without the full democratic panoply of an independent judiciary, free press, and viable political parties, constitute, in reality, illiberal democracies, which still menace their neighbors and destabilize their regions."
  101. ^ David P. Forsythe, Human Rights in International Relations (Cambridge University Press, 2012), p. 231: "Illiberal democracies may have reasonably free and fair national elections based on broad suffrage, but they do not counteract the tyranny of the majority with effective protections for ethnic and religious minorities or various types of dissenters."
  102. ^ Rod Hague & Martin Harrop, Political Science: A Comparative Introduction (7th ed.: Palgrave Macmillan: 2007), p. 259: "The gradual implementation of the rule of law and due process is an accomplishment of liberal politics, provide a basis for distinguishing liberal from illiberal democracies, and both from authoritarian regimes."
  103. ^ Vladimir Popov, "Circumstances versus Policy Choices: Why Has the Economic Performance of the Soviet Successor States Been So Poor" in After the Collapse of Communism: Comparative Lessons of Transition (eds. Michael McFaul & Kathryn Stoner-Weiss: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 20: "The least efficient institutions are in illiberal democracies combining poor rule of law with democracy ... Less democratic regimes with weak rule of law ... appear to do better than illiberal democracies in maintaining institutional capacity."
  104. ^ Hegre, Håvard; Ellington, Tanja; Gates, Scott & Nils Petter Gleditsch (2001). "Towards A Democratic Civil Peace? Opportunity, Grievance and Civil War 1816–1992". American Political Science Review. 95: 33–48. doi:10.1017/S0003055401000119. S2CID 7521813. Archived from the original on 6 April 2004.
  105. ^ Ray, James Lee (2013). Elman, Colin; Miriam Fendius Elman (eds.). A Lakatosian View of the Democratic Peace Research Program From Progress in International Relations Theory (PDF). MIT Press. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 June 2006.
  106. ^ Rummel, R. J. (1997). Power kills: democracy as a method of nonviolence. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. ISBN 978-1-56000-297-0.
  107. ^ Daniel Lederman, Norman Loayza, & Rodrigo Res Soares, "Accountability and Corruption: Political Institutions Matter" Archived 2021-01-19 at the Wayback Machine, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2708 (November 2001).
  108. ^ Abadie, Alberto (May 2006). "Poverty, Political Freedom, and the Roots of Terrorism". American Economic Review. 96 (2): 50–56. doi:10.1257/000282806777211847. Archived from the original on 24 October 2019. Retrieved 24 October 2019.
  109. ^ a b c Magen, Amichai (January 2018). "Fighting Terrorism: The Democracy Advantage". Journal of Democracy. 29 (1): 111–125. doi:10.1353/jod.2018.0009. S2CID 158598818. Archived from the original on 24 March 2020. Retrieved 24 March 2020.
  110. ^ Gibson, Edward L. (2013). Boundary Control: Subnational Authoritarianism in Federal Democracies. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-19223-1.
  111. ^ a b c Levitsky, Steven; Way, Lucan A. (2010). Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War. Cambridge University Press. pp. 5–7. ISBN 978-1-139-49148-8. Archived from the original on 12 June 2020. Retrieved 3 July 2019.
  112. ^ Mufti, Mariam (2018). "What Do We Know about Hybrid Regimes after Two Decades of Scholarship?". Politics and Governance. 6 (5): 112–119. doi:10.17645/pag.v6i2.1400.
  113. ^ Tomasky, Michael (1 July 2019). "Do the Republicans Even Believe in Democracy Anymore?". New York Times. Archived from the original on 2 July 2019. Retrieved 3 July 2019.
  114. ^ Levitsky & Way (2010), pp. 7–12.
  115. ^ Nolte, Ernst (1965). The Three Faces of Fascism: Action Française, Italian Fascism, National Socialism. Translated by Leila Vennewitz. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. p. 300. ISBN 978-0-03-052240-6.
  116. ^ Turner, Henry Ashby (1975). Reappraisals of Fascism. New Viewpoints. p. 162. ISBN 978-0-531-05579-3. "[Fascism]'s goals of radical and authoritarian nationalism".
  117. ^ Hagtvet, Bernt; Larsen, Stein Ugelvik; Myklebust, Jan Petter, eds. (1984). Who Were the Fascists: Social Roots of European Fascism. Columbia University Press. p. 424. ISBN 978-82-00-05331-6. "[...] organized form of integrative radical nationalist authoritarianism".
  118. ^ Paxton, Robert (2004). The Anatomy of Fascism. Alfred A. Knopf. pp. 32, 45, 173. ISBN 978-1-4000-4094-0.
  119. ^ Weber, Eugen (1964). Varieties of fascism : doctrines of revolution in the twentieth century (reprint ed.). New York: Van Nostrand. ISBN 978-0-89874-444-6.
  120. ^ Laclau, Ernesto (1977). Politics and ideology in Marxist theory : capitalism, fascism, populism (English-language ed.). London: Verso. ISBN 978-1-84467-788-7.
  121. ^ Fritzsche, Peter (1990). Rehearsals for fascism : populism and political mobilization in Weimar Germany (1st printing ed.). New York: Oxford Univ. Press. ISBN 978-0-19-505780-5.
  122. ^ Griffin, Roger (1991). The nature of fascism (1st American ed.). New York: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-0-312-07132-5.
  123. ^ Payne, Stanley G. (1995). A history of fascism, 1914–45. London: UCL Press. ISBN 978-0-299-14874-4.
  124. ^ Eatwell, Roger (1996). Fascism : a history (1st American ed.). New York: Allen Lane. ISBN 978-0-7139-9147-5.
  125. ^ Laqueur, Walter (1996). Fascism : past, present, future (reprint ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-511793-6.
  126. ^ Reich, Wilhelm (2000). The mass psychology of fascism (3rd revised and enlarged ed.). New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. ISBN 978-0-374-50884-5.
  127. ^ Paxton, Robert (2004). The Anatomy of Fascism (1st ed.). New York: Knopf Imprint. ISBN 978-1-4000-4094-0.
  128. ^ Delzell, Charles F. (Spring 1988). "Remembering Mussolini". The Wilson Quarterly. 12 (2). Washington, D.C.: Wilson Quarterly: 127. JSTOR 40257305. Archived from the original on 13 May 2022. Retrieved 24 April 2022. Retrieved April 8, 2022
  129. ^ The Concise Encyclopedia of Democracy. New York, NY: Routledge. 2013. pp. 51, 391. ISBN 978-1-57958-268-5.
  130. ^ Bluth, C. (2011). Crisis on the Korean Peninsula. Potomac Books. p. 62. ISBN 978-1-57488-887-4. Retrieved 5 February 2023.
  131. ^ a b c Radu Cinpoes, Nationalism and Identity in Romania: A History of Extreme Politics from the Birth of the State to EU Accession, p. 70.
  132. ^ Tavernise, Sabrina (9 April 2022). "Putin's War in Ukraine Shatters an Illusion in Russia". The New York Times. New York Times.
  133. ^ Rodrik, Dani (9 August 2010). "The Myth of Authoritarian Growth | by Dani Rodrik". Project Syndicate. Retrieved 7 January 2022.
  134. ^ Acemoglu, Daron; Naidu, Suresh; Restrepo, Pascual; Robinson, James A. (2019). "Democracy Does Cause Growth". Journal of Political Economy. 127 (1): 47–100. doi:10.1086/700936. hdl:1721.1/124287. ISSN 0022-3808. S2CID 222452675.
  135. ^ Sen, A. K. (1999). "Democracy as a Universal Value". Journal of Democracy. 10 (3): 3–17. doi:10.1353/jod.1999.0055. S2CID 54556373.
  136. ^ Franco, Á.; Álvarez-Dardet, C.; Ruiz, M. T. (2004). "Effect of democracy on health: ecological study". BMJ. 329 (7480): 1421–1423. doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7480.1421. PMC 535957. PMID 15604165.
  137. ^ Gerring, John; Gjerløw, Haakon; Knutsen, Carl Henrik (2022). "Regimes and industrialization". World Development. 152: 105791. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105791. hdl:10852/89922. ISSN 0305-750X.
  138. ^ a b Morton H. Halperin, Joseph T. Siegle, & Michael M. Weinstein, The Democracy Advantage: How Democracies Promote Prosperity and Peace. Archived 2015-10-07 at the Wayback Machine (Council on Foreign Relations/Psychology Press, 2005).
  139. ^ Morgenbesser, Lee (18 July 2024). "The Lost Works of Nondemocratic Rule". The Oxford Handbook of Authoritarian Politics. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198871996.013.62. ISBN 978-0-19-887199-6.
  140. ^ The Federal Police Archived 2018-10-05 at the Wayback Machine. Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community of Germany
  141. ^ Cox, David (2005). Sign Wars: The Culture Jammers Strike Back!. LedaTape Organisation. p. 108. ISBN 978-0-9807701-5-5. Retrieved 22 October 2011.
  142. ^ "Retired Site PBS Programs". pbs.org. Archived from the original on 7 July 2007. Retrieved 4 September 2016.
  143. ^ "The way of the hippie is antithetical to all repressive hierarchical power structures since they are adverse to the hippie goals of peace, love and freedom ... Hippies don't impose their beliefs on others. Instead, hippies seek to change the world through reason and by living what they believe."Stone, Skip. "The Way of the Hippy". www.hipplanet.com.
  144. ^ McLaughlin, Paul (2007). Anarchism and Authority. Aldershot: Ashgate. p. 10. ISBN 978-0-7546-6196-2.
  145. ^ "The challenge of the past". The Economist. 22 October 1998. Archived from the original on 18 October 2018. Retrieved 17 October 2018.
  146. ^ a b Tharoor, Ishaan (9 February 2017). "The man who declared 'the end of history' fears for democracy's future". Washington Post. Archived from the original on 30 November 2018. Retrieved 4 October 2018.
  147. ^ a b c d Ignatieff, Michael (10 July 2014). "Are the Authoritarians Winning?". New York Review of Books. 65 (11). Archived from the original on 22 September 2018. Retrieved 4 October 2018.
  148. ^ Fairbanks, Charles H. Jr. (16 January 2014). "Causes of Authoritarianism in the Former Soviet Republics". Heinrich Boell Stiftung. Archived from the original on 6 October 2018. Retrieved 5 October 2018.
  149. ^ Bradley, Matt (19 December 2020). "10 years after Arab Spring, autocratic regimes hold the upper hand". NBC News.
  150. ^ Robinson, Kali (2 December 2020). "The Arab Spring at Ten Years: What's the Legacy of the Uprisings?". Council on Foreign Relations.
  151. ^ a b Levitsky, Steven; Way, Lucan (January 2015). "The Myth of Democratic Recession" (PDF). Journal of Democracy. 26 (1): 45–58. doi:10.1353/jod.2015.0007. S2CID 154831503. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 August 2018. Retrieved 4 October 2018.
  152. ^ "Freedom in the World 2018 Democracy in Crisis". Freedom House. Archived from the original on 7 October 2019. Retrieved 4 October 2018.
  153. ^ "New Report: Freedom in the World 2020 finds established democracies are in decline". Freedom House. Archived from the original on 15 September 2020. Retrieved 20 September 2020.
  154. ^ Tsourapas, Gerasimos (2020). "Global Autocracies: Strategies of Transnational Repression, Legitimation, and Co-Optation in World Politics". International Studies Review. 23 (3): 616–644. doi:10.1093/isr/viaa061. ISSN 1521-9488.
  155. ^ Leonhardt, David (17 September 2022). "Democracy Challenged 'A Crisis Coming': The Twin Threats to American Democracy". The New York Times. New York Times. Retrieved 20 September 2022.
  156. ^ "Democracy Report 2022 Autocratization Changing Nature?" (PDF). V-Dem. Retrieved 20 September 2022.
  157. ^ Frum, David (November 2018). "The Republican Party Needs to Embrace Liberalism". Atlantic. Archived from the original on 4 October 2018. Retrieved 4 October 2018.
  158. ^ Ruthven, Malise (23 June 2016). "How to Understand ISIS". New York Review of Books. 63 (11). Archived from the original on 7 August 2016. Retrieved 12 June 2016.
  159. ^ Phua, Yun Ru (31 March 2015). "After Every Winter Comes Spring: Tunisia's Democratic Flowering – Berkeley Political Review". Bpr.berkeley.edu. Archived from the original on 29 July 2017. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
  160. ^ "Middle East review of 2012: the Arab Winter". The Telegraph. 31 December 2012. Archived from the original on 10 June 2019. Retrieved 19 July 2014.
  161. ^ "Analysis: Arab Winter is coming to Baghdad". The Telegraph. The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 14 July 2019. Retrieved 8 October 2014.
  162. ^ "Expert Warns of America's Coming 'Arab Winter'". CBN. 8 September 2014. Archived from the original on 9 December 2018. Retrieved 8 October 2014.
  163. ^ "The Arab Winter". The New Yorker. 28 December 2011. Archived from the original on 25 September 2018. Retrieved 8 October 2014.
  164. ^ "Arab Spring or Arab Winter?". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on 18 July 2019. Retrieved 8 October 2014.
  165. ^ Bhagavan, Manu (21 March 2016). "We are witnessing the rise of global authoritarianism on a chilling scale". Qz.com. Archived from the original on 4 October 2018. Retrieved 4 October 2018.
  166. ^ Cowen, Tyler (3 April 2017). "Opinion: China's Success Explains Authoritarianism's Allure". Bloomberg. Archived from the original on 18 August 2018. Retrieved 4 October 2018.
  167. ^ Cowen, Tyler (4 April 2017). "Why is authoritarianism on the rise?". marginalrevolution.com. Archived from the original on 5 October 2018. Retrieved 4 October 2018.
  168. ^ Kaiser, Charles (8 April 2018). "Can it Happen Here? review: urgent studies in rise of authoritarian America (Review of Cass Sunstein book Can It Happen Here?: Authoritarianism in America)". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 4 October 2018. Retrieved 4 October 2018.
  169. ^ a b c d Azani, Eitan; Koblenz-Stenzler, Liram; Atiyas-Lvovsky, Lorena; Ganor, Dan; Ben-Am, Arie; Meshulam, Delilah (2020). "The Development and Characterization of Far-Right Ideologies". The Far Right — Ideology, Modus Operandi and Development Trends. International Institute for Counter-Terrorism. pp. 13–36.
  170. ^ "Totalitarianism". The Concise Encyclopedia of Democracy. New York, NY: Routledge. 2013. p. 391. ISBN 978-1-57958-268-5.

Bibliography

  • Linz, Juan J. (1964). "An Authoritarian Regime: The Case of Spain". In Allard, Eric; Littunen, Yrjo. Cleavages, Ideologies and Party Systems. Helsinki: Academic Bookstore.

Further reading

  • Frantz; Erica; Geddes, Barbara; Wrights, Joseph (2018). How Dictatorships Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316336182.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Authoritarianism&oldid=1263826210#Authoritarianism_and_totalitarianism"