Authoritarianism

Authoritarianism

very different governments united mostly by the fact that they do not transfer power through free and fair elections.

Authoritarian regimes

Regimes that have no electoral turnover in power of the executive and no meaningful elections. government only represents elite part of population

Electoral turnover

The process of transferring power through free and fair elections.

Svolik (2012) definition of authoritarian regime

Any political system that is not a democracy (= a residual category).

Key features of authoritarian regimes

Absence of an independent authority that would enforce mutual agreements and the ever-present potential for violence.

Totalitarian regimes

Totalitarian regimes

seek to exert full control over society beyond that of merely holding office

complete control of state and society, reshaping of human nature, charismatic leader and personality cults, based on ideology, and participatory nature/mass membership in the party.

example: North Korea

Challenges for classification of authoritarian regimes

Large variation and difficulty in using formal institutions for building classifications.

Categorical approach

Focuses on nature of elite which control access to political office and policy. Different elites have different incentives, affecting dynamics of regime

Dimensional/Continuous approach

An approach to classify authoritarian regimes that considers a range of characteristics rather than fixed categories.

Military regimes

officers decides who will rule and exercises some influence on policy. e.g. Myanmar Junta

Categorical types of authoritarian regimes

Single party, military, personalist

Historic example of military regime

Brazil, 1964-1985.

Contemporary example of military regime

Myanmar (Burma), 2021

Geddes (1999) on categorical classification

Produces a classification of authoritarian regimes according to the nature of the elite which controls them.

Types of elites in authoritarian regimes

Military, Single-party, Personalist. Monarchic

Single-party regime

A regime where a single political party controls the government. Other parties may legally exist and compete in elections

Continuous Approach

Continuous approach

Svolik (2012):

- dictators cant govern alone

- regimes location on dimensions of political organisation rather than classification into categories

- scales/typologies

Variations in authoritarianism

Different kinds of authoritarianism differ from each other as much as they differ from democracy.

Absence of independent authority

A characteristic of authoritarian regimes where there is no entity to enforce agreements between parties.

Personalist regime

A regime where a single leader holds significant power, often characterized by a personality cult. (includes military/single-party where those institutions don't have decision making power) e.g. Turkmenistan

Potential for violence

Potential for violence

A common feature in authoritarian regimes indicating the threat of coercive force.

dictators cant govern alone

Variation in authoritarianism

Different kinds of authoritarianism differ from each other as much as they differ from democracy.

Absence of independent authority

A characteristic of authoritarian regimes where there is no entity to enforce agreements between parties.

Potential for violence

A common feature in authoritarian regimes indicating the threat of coercive force.

Single-party regimes

Access to political office and control over policy are dominated by one party, though other parties may legally exist and compete in elections.

Historic example of single-party regime

Mexico, 1929-1990s

Contemporary example of single-party regime

China, 1949-

Personalist regimes

Access to office and the fruits of office depends much more on the discretion of an individual leader.

Contemporary example of personalist regime

Turkmenistan, 1985/1991-2006

Historic example of personalist regime

Uganda, 1971-1979

Alternative categorical classification

Monarchic, military, and civilian.

Dimensional/continuous approach

Rather than classifying dictatorships according to their prominent descriptive features, we should instead explicitly identify the conceptual dimensions of authoritarian politics that we want to measure.

Svolik's critique of Geddes

Locates regimes on dimensions of political organization, rather than classifying them into categories.

Tricky case for classification

Syria 1970-2000, ruled by Hafez al-Assad with a single regime party, the Ba'ath Party, and key posts held by military officers. Cannot be said if its single-party, military, or personalist. features aren't mutually exclusive

Critiques of categorical approach

Producing types that are not mutually exclusive or collectively exhaustive.

Svolik's measurement dimensions

Separately measures four aspects of political organization: military involvement, restrictions on political parties, legislative selection, and executive selection.

Svolik: military involvement

extent to which military is involved

Svolik: Restrictions on political parties

Number of parties allowed (none, one, multiple?).

Svolik: Legislative selection

Degree to which there is an elected legislature.

Svolik: Executive selection

Degree to which there is an elected executive.

Continuous/dimensional approach

Means you can ask what regimes look like on key dimensions, rather than creating overall summary categories.

Problem of Authoritarian control

Balance against the threat from the masses, which is considered the primary threat in conventional wisdom, but empirically occurs in a minority of cases.

Problem can be solved via repression (carrot) or co-optation (stick)

Coup d'état more likely to occur

Repression

A method of maintaining authoritarian control that involves suppressing opposition, but carries risks as it can empower repressive agents to act against the regime itself as they acquire political leverage.

Authoritarian leaders more likely to choose this over co-optation

Co-optation

A regime's efforts to engender loyalty by tying strategically relevant actors or groups to the regime elite.

Fundamental trade-off

The conflict between external threats from angry protestors and internal threats from repressive agents.

Authoritarian power-sharing

The necessity for a dictator to share power with allies due to their lack of sufficient power to rule independently.

Problem of power-sharing

dictator not powerful enough to rule independent of other forces

Problem of power-sharing between dictator and allies

lack of Independent authority

A lack of a neutral entity to enforce agreements among key political actors,

Omnipresence of violence as arbiter of conflicts

The constant presence of violence as the ultimate means of resolving conflicts in authoritarian contexts.

Transparency and compliance

Institutions created by dictators to ensure adherence to rules, facilitating stability and reducing uncertainty.

Nominally democratic institutions

Institutions that exist under dictatorship but serve authoritarian ends, facilitating power-sharing

Consolidation of power

dictators attempt to strengthen their control and reduce reliance on institutions that facilitate power-sharing.

Competitive authoritarianism

formal democratic institutions that incumbents abuse to gain an advantage over opponents.

Hybridity

some regimes contain elements of both democracy and authoritarianism, particularly in the post-Cold War context.

Post-Cold War tendency

The trend of more countries adopting formal democratic institutions without actually transitioning to democracy.

Incumbents' abuse of the state

The actions taken by those in power that place them at a significant advantage over their opponents in competitive authoritarian regimes.

Unfair competition

while opposition can contest for power, the competition is skewed by fraud, intimidation, and unequal access to resources.

Assessment of boundaries

The challenge of reliably determining the differences between competitive authoritarian regimes, democracies, and full authoritarian systems.

Categorical mapping

Typologies of authoritarian regimes as proposed by scholars like Geddes and Cheibub.

Continuous/Dimensional mapping

A spectrum approach to understanding variations of authoritarian regimes as suggested by Svolik, Levitsky, and Way.