Chapter 9 - Varieties of Dictatorship Notes

Rating

0.0(0)

Toward A Typology of Authoritarian Regimes

Dictatorships aren't all created equal. Indeed, dictatorships come in a broad range of forms and may be categorized in a variety of ways (Geddes 1999; Hadenius and Teorell 2007; Levitsky and Way 2002; Schedler 2002). According to Cheibub, Gandhi, and Vreeland (2010), one method to distinguish between dictatorships is how dictatorial rulers are ousted from power.

Monarchies are the first form of authoritarian rule. 2 Dictatorial monarchs frequently rely on their family and kin networks to gain and maintain power. According to Gandhi and Przeworski, the emir of Qatar “reshuffled his cabinet in 1992, putting his sons as ministers of defense, finance and petroleum, interior, economics, and commerce; his grandson in charge of defense affairs; and his nephews in public service.”
Swaziland is a modern monarchy that demonstrates the importance of the royal family in selecting the king, as well as the extent to which some rulers would go to maintain their social support base.
The greatest serious challenge to military dictatorships' stability usually comes from inside the military. Consider the history of military control in Guinea, a country in West Africa. Following a coup headed by Lieutenant-Colonel Lansana Conté, a military junta known as the Military Committee of National Recovery was created in Guinea in April 1984. Following the assassination of Guinea's first president, Sékou Touré, the coup took place.

The most significant threat to the stability of military dictatorships generally comes from inside the military. Consider the history of military rule in Guinea, a West African country. In April 1984, a military junta known as the Military Committee of National Recovery (CMRN) was established in Guinea following a coup led by Lieutenant-Colonel Lansana Conté. The coup took place after Guinea's first president, Sékou Touré, was assassinated.
As a result, when a dictator is deposed, he is likely to be replaced by a defecting member of his own support coalition. As a result, dictators should be replaced with dictators of a similar sort on a regular basis. Indeed, there is convincing evidence that this is the case. For example, Gandhi and Przeworski (2007) look at 388 authoritarian leaders who came to office after 1945 and departed power before 1996 for causes other than natural death.

A regime party is formed by several civilian dictators. “One party controls access to political office and influence over policy under a dominant-party dictatorship, while other parties may exist and compete as small participants in elections.”
Citizens were progressively indoctrinated to follow the party line as they rose through the ranks of the CPSU; showing allegiance to the party was critical to attaining and maintaining the privileges of power that came with membership in the nomenklatura.
“The Soviet leadership has thus far been clever in the way it has connected the destiny of many individuals in the country to the fate of the regime,” writes Hough.

In this chapter, we look at the many different types of dictatorships that exist across the world. One method to discern between dictatorships, we believe, is to look at their “support coalitions.” According to this perspective, there are three sorts of dictatorships: monarchies, military dictatorships, and civilian dictatorships. Civilian dictatorships may be divided into two types: personalistic dictatorships and dictatorships with a dominating regime party.
Leaders in dominant-party dictatorships with tiny winning coalitions and vast electorates have incentives to give private benefits to their winning coalition. Low levels of wealth, ineffective governance, and high degrees of corruption and kleptocracy are all hallmarks of these leaders' governments.

Dictatorships aren't all created equal. Indeed, dictatorships come in a broad range of forms and may be categorized in a variety of ways (Geddes 1999; Hadenius and Teorell 2007; Levitsky and Way 2002; Schedler 2002). According to Cheibub, Gandhi, and Vreeland (2010), one method to distinguish between dictatorships is how dictatorial rulers are ousted from power.

Monarchies are the first form of authoritarian rule. 2 Dictatorial monarchs frequently rely on their family and kin networks to gain and maintain power. According to Gandhi and Przeworski, the emir of Qatar “reshuffled his cabinet in 1992, putting his sons as ministers of defense, finance and petroleum, interior, economics, and commerce; his grandson in charge of defense affairs; and his nephews in public service.”
Swaziland is a modern monarchy that demonstrates the importance of the royal family in selecting the king, as well as the extent to which some rulers would go to maintain their social support base.
The greatest serious challenge to military dictatorships' stability usually comes from inside the military. Consider the history of military control in Guinea, a country in West Africa. Following a coup headed by Lieutenant-Colonel Lansana Conté, a military junta known as the Military Committee of National Recovery was created in Guinea in April 1984. Following the assassination of Guinea's first president, Sékou Touré, the coup took place.

The most significant threat to the stability of military dictatorships generally comes from inside the military. Consider the history of military rule in Guinea, a West African country. In April 1984, a military junta known as the Military Committee of National Recovery (CMRN) was established in Guinea following a coup led by Lieutenant-Colonel Lansana Conté. The coup took place after Guinea's first president, Sékou Touré, was assassinated.
As a result, when a dictator is deposed, he is likely to be replaced by a defecting member of his own support coalition. As a result, dictators should be replaced with dictators of a similar sort on a regular basis. Indeed, there is convincing evidence that this is the case. For example, Gandhi and Przeworski (2007) look at 388 authoritarian leaders who came to office after 1945 and departed power before 1996 for causes other than natural death.

A regime party is formed by several civilian dictators. “One party controls access to political office and influence over policy under a dominant-party dictatorship, while other parties may exist and compete as small participants in elections.”
Citizens were progressively indoctrinated to follow the party line as they rose through the ranks of the CPSU; showing allegiance to the party was critical to attaining and maintaining the privileges of power that came with membership in the nomenklatura.
“The Soviet leadership has thus far been clever in the way it has connected the destiny of many individuals in the country to the fate of the regime,” writes Hough.