Authoritarianism

Authoritarianism is a way that governments can run a country where they have strong control and don't allow many different opinions or choices. In these kinds of governments, leaders often keep their power by limiting what people can do politically, such as joining groups or voting freely. They might say they are needed to solve big problems in the country.

An expert named Juan Linz described four main features of authoritarian governments. First, there is limited chance for different political groups to operate. Second, these governments often claim they are necessary to fix important issues. Third, they try to keep people from organizing against them. Fourth, the leader's powers are not clearly defined and can change.

Before the year 2000, many authoritarian governments started after a sudden change called a coup. But since 2000, more often, leaders who were elected by people later changed the rules to keep power for themselves, moving away from democratic ways.

Characteristics

Authoritarianism is a way of governing where power is very concentrated in the hands of a few leaders. This system often uses strong control to keep things the same and limits people’s freedom to challenge the government. Leaders in such systems may come to power through elections, but once in office, they often don’t allow real competition or change.

Authoritarian governments might use rules that look like those in democracies, such as having a constitution, but these rules often don’t work the same way. They might have elections, but these elections are usually not fair or open. The leaders control the media, limit what people can say or do, and often keep power for a long time without letting people choose new leaders freely. These governments rely on support from groups like the military or political parties to stay in power.

Typologies

According to Yale professor Juan José Linz there are three main types of political systems today: democracies, totalitarian regimes, and authoritarian regimes, which sit between the two.

According to University of Michigan professor Dan Slater, modern forms of authoritarianism are different from older forms of rule without democracy. He connects modern authoritarianism to the time of mass politics, which started with the French Revolution.

Similar terms

• An authoritarian regime has a lot of power in one leader or a small group, but they are not responsible to the people by law. Unlike totalitarian states, they allow some social and economic groups to operate without government control, and they usually rely on people accepting things quietly instead of active support.
• An Autocracy is a government where one person has unlimited power.
• A Totalitarian state controls every part of life and uses strong measures to make people follow its rules. It is ruled by one party of loyal supporters. Unlike autocracies, which just want total political power, totalitarian states want to control every part of everyone’s life.
• A Fascist state is autocratic and based on a strong political belief system. It exalts the nation and often race above the individual, with a dictatorial leader and strict control of opposition.
• Authoritarian personality is a type of person who obeys authority figures very closely.
• Authoritarian ethics believes that only a leader can decide what is right or wrong.

Subtypes

Several types of authoritarian regimes have been identified. Linz pointed to two main types: traditional authoritarian regimes and bureaucratic-military authoritarian regimes.

• Traditional authoritarian regimes keep power through old traditions, personal connections, and control by people who are loyal to the ruler. An example is Ethiopia under Haile Selassie I.

• Bureaucratic-military authoritarian regimes are ruled by military leaders and experts who act in a practical way within their limits. Mark J. Gasiorowski suggests that simple military authoritarian regimes can be different from bureaucratic authoritarian regimes where experts use the government to develop the economy, such as South Korea under Park Chung-hee.

According to Barbara Geddes, there are seven types of authoritarian regimes: dominant party regimes, military regimes, personalist regimes, monarchies, oligarchic regimes, indirect military regimes, or mixes of the first three.

Types of authoritarian regimes identified by Linz include corporatist, racial and ethnic “democracy,” and post-totalitarian.

• Corporatist authoritarian regimes use institutions to control powerful groups. This has been studied most in Latin America.
• Racial and ethnic “democracies” are systems where some racial or ethnic groups have full rights while others do not, like South Africa under apartheid.
• Post-totalitarian authoritarian regimes keep some totalitarian institutions but have less strict rules, less control, and less mass mobilization. Examples include the Russian Federation and Soviet Eastern Bloc states in the mid-1980s. The People’s Republic of China after Mao Zedong was seen as post-totalitarian in the 1990s and early 2000s, but increased control sharply after Xi Jinping rose to power in 2012, helped by digital control and mass surveillance.

Authoritarian regimes can also be grouped by whether they are more personal or populist. Personalistic authoritarian regimes use personal networks and force instead of formal rules. Populist authoritarian regimes have a strong leader who rules with support from lower-class groups. Examples include Argentina under Juan Perón, Russia under Vladimir Putin, Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser, and Venezuela under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro.

A way to group authoritarian regimes by political scientists Brian Lai and Dan Slater includes four types:

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

Lai and Slater say that single-party regimes are better than military regimes at building institutions that help the regime stay in power and reduce challenges. They also say that military regimes often start conflicts or take extreme steps to keep control more than single-party regimes.

John Duckitt links authoritarianism to collectivism, saying both focus on group goals over individual rights.

According to Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way, authoritarian regimes created in social revolutions last longer than other types.

Authoritarianism and democracy

Authoritarianism and democracy are not exact opposites; they can exist on a scale. Some democracies have authoritarian elements, and some authoritarian systems have democratic elements. Authoritarian regimes may listen to some citizen concerns, but only if those concerns do not threaten the regime’s stability. An illiberal democracy, or procedural democracy, lacks features like the rule of law, protection for minority groups, an independent judiciary, and separation of powers.

Research shows democratic countries have fewer wars and civil wars, less government-caused killings, and less corruption. Studies also find that terrorism is most common in countries with medium levels of freedom, not in very free or very uncontrolled countries.

Within democratic countries, there can be areas with authoritarian control. Examples include the Southern United States after Reconstruction, and parts of modern Argentina and Mexico.

Competitive authoritarian regimes

Another type of authoritarian regime is the competitive authoritarian regime, which appeared after the Cold War. In these regimes, democratic rules exist and are seen as the main way to gain power, but leaders abuse their power to stay in control. Elections are held, and opposition groups can operate without fear of punishment, but the system is not fair. Democratic procedures are not strong enough for opposition groups to truly compete for power.

Authoritarianism and fascism

Authoritarianism is a key part of fascism. Scholars say that while all fascist regimes are authoritarian, not all authoritarian regimes are fascist. More traits are needed to call a regime fascist.

Authoritarianism and totalitarianism

Totalitarianism is a very strict form of authoritarianism. The ruling group, often led by one dictator, controls almost every part of society. Linz pointed out differences between new authoritarian forms and personalistic dictatorships or totalitarian states. Unlike personalistic dictatorships, new authoritarian forms have institutions that represent many groups. Unlike totalitarian states, authoritarian regimes rely on quiet acceptance rather than active support. Authoritarian regimes differ from totalitarian ones because they do not control every part of life and do not try to change human nature. Totalitarianism invades private life and aims to reshape the world.

Economic effects

Some studies show that countries with democratic systems often grow better over time and have more stable economies. They also tend to have better health outcomes and are less likely to face severe shortages of food.

However, a few scholars think that some authoritarian governments might have certain advantages in early stages of industrial growth. But overall, research suggests that democratic systems tend to perform better in the long run, with more steady growth and fewer big crises. Civil liberties in democracies also help prevent corruption and misuse of resources.

Military effects

Some experts believe that countries with strong democratic systems often perform better in battles than those without. They say democratic soldiers may fight harder, and democratic countries often team up together in wars. They also think democracies can use more of their money for fighting.

However, others think that whether a country wins or loses a war depends more on its overall strength than whether it is a democracy. Some say that in certain situations, countries without full democracy might have an edge because they can demand complete loyalty from their soldiers, which might help keep the military united. For example, this was seen in the Vietnam War.

Historical trends

Pre-World War II

Before World War II, many countries had leaders with strong power who did not allow different opinions. These times are often not studied much.

Post-World War II anti-authoritarianism

Main article: Anti-authoritarianism

After World War II ended in 1945 and the Cold War ended in 1991, many countries changed from having strong leaders to having more open governments. World War II ended the power of countries like Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. After the war, many places in Europe worked to allow more freedom and different ideas.

In the years after the war, many people in Europe and other places worked against having strong leaders. This idea spread to many parts of the world. In South America, countries like Argentina and Chile moved toward letting people choose their leaders.

When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, many more countries began to try new ways of governing that were not based on strong control.

In 2010, people in several Middle Eastern countries began to speak up against leaders who did not allow freedom. This was known as the Arab Spring. Some countries changed leaders, but others faced difficult times.

21st-century

Since around 2005, some people have noticed that strong leadership and less freedom have been growing again in many places. Reports in 2020 showed that many countries were losing points for how free they were.

Some reasons for this change include changes in how the world economy works, the rise of groups with strong opinions, and the influence of countries like the People's Republic of China. Social media has also made it harder to know what is true, which can affect how people think about their leaders.

Different groups have tried to understand how to measure how free countries are. Many experts think that some countries, including the United States, are moving away from having open governments to ones with stronger control.