Authoritarianism examples from history. Political regimes

It is an intermediate step between totalitarianism and democracy, combining the features of these two systems.

Signs

To understand what authoritarianism is, it is necessary to highlight its features. There are several of them. The first is autocracy or autocracy. In other words, a person or a group of persons who have taken the helm of the state takes control of all the levers of governing the country and does not hand them over to competitors, as is done, for example, during democratic elections.

Authoritarian power is unlimited. Citizens cannot control it, even if by law their opinion means something. Such documents as the constitution are changed at the discretion of the authorities and acquire a comfortable form for it. For example, the law sets an unlimited number of terms for the head of state to hold office.

Sole power

The most important signs of authoritarianism are its aspirations to rely on force - potential or real. Such a regime does not have to arrange repression - it can be popular among the people. However, if necessary, such a government will always be able to force uncontrolled citizens to obey.

What is authoritarianism? This is the avoidance of any kind of competition or opposition. If the regime has existed for many years, then monotony will become the norm, and society will lose the need for an alternative. At the same time, authoritarianism allows the existence of trade unions, parties and other public organizations, but only if they are completely controlled and are a decoration.

Another important characteristic is the abandonment of widespread control over society. Power is mainly concerned with ensuring its own survival and eliminating threats directed against it. The state and society in such a system can live in two parallel worlds, where officials do not interfere in the private life of citizens, but do not allow themselves to be deprived of their posts.

Bureaucracy

The classical authoritarianism of a country comes at the moment when it becomes a nomenclature. In other words, it refuses its own rotation through the competition in the elections. Instead, officials are appointed by decrees from above. The result is a nomenclature, vertical and closed environment.

Of all the signs that characterize what authoritarianism is, one of the most obvious is the merging of all branches of government (judicial, executive and legislative) into one. Such regimes are characterized by populism. The rhetoric of the "fathers of the nation" is based on the idea of the need to unite the entire country around the existing system. In foreign policy, such states behave aggressively and imperialistically, if there are enough resources for this.

Authoritarianism cannot exist without authority. It can be a charismatic leader or an organization (party), which is also a symbol (of sovereignty, a great past, etc.). These features are the main features of authoritarianism. Moreover, each such country has its own unique characteristics.

Causes of occurrence

To better illustrate what authoritarianism is, it is necessary to list its most illustrative examples. This is despotism Ancient East, ancient tyrannies, absolute monarchies in the era of modern times, empires of the XIX century. History demonstrates a great many forms of this phenomenon. This means that political authoritarianism can be combined with a wide variety of systems: feudalism, slavery, socialism, capitalism, monarchy and democracy. Because of this, it is extremely difficult to isolate a universal rule according to which such a system arises.

Most often, a precondition for the emergence of authoritarianism in a country is a political and social crisis in society. Such a situation may arise during a transitional period, when established traditions, historical structure and way of life break down. Such a process can cover a period during which one or two generations change. People who have not adapted to new living conditions (for example, those that have arisen as a result of economic reforms) strive for a "strong hand and order", that is, the sole power of a dictator.

Leader and enemies

Phenomena such as authoritarianism and democracy are incompatible. In the first case, a marginalized society delegates all decisions that are fundamentally important for the life of the country to one person. In an authoritarian country, the figure of the leader and the state represent the only hope for better life for people at the bottom of the social ladder.

The image of an indispensable enemy also appears. It can be a certain social group), a social institution, or an entire country (nation). The cult of the leader's personality emerges, on whom the last hopes of getting out of the crisis are pinned. There are other features that distinguish authoritarianism. A regime of this kind reinforces the significance of the bureaucracy. Normal functioning of the executive branch is impossible without it.

Various examples of authoritarianism have taken place in history. They played different roles in the historical process. For example, Sulla's regime Ancient rome was conservative, Hitler's rule in Germany was reactionary, and the periods of the reign of Peter I, Napoleon and Bismarck were progressive.

Modern authoritarianism

Despite widespread progress, even today the world has not become completely democratic. States continue to exist based on authoritarianism. Power in such countries is fundamentally different from the exemplary Western European systems. An illustrative example a similar difference is the so-called "third world". It includes countries in Africa, Latin America and other regions of the world.

Until recently (until the second half of the 20th century), the "Black Continent" remained a colonial base for the European metropolises: Great Britain, France, etc. When African countries gained independence, they adopted the democratic model from the Old World. However, it didn't work. Almost all African states have over time turned into

This pattern is partly due to the traditions of Eastern society. In Africa, Asia, and to a lesser extent in Latin America, the value of human life and individual independence has never been at its best. Every citizen there is considered part of a common whole. The collective is more important than the personal. Authoritarianism arises from this mentality. The definition of such a regime suggests that it deprives society of its freedom. This is much easier to do where independence has never been considered valuable.

Differences from a totalitarian regime

As an intermediate step, authoritarianism is much more similar to totalitarianism than to democracy, and What, then, is the difference between these dictatorships? Authoritarianism is directed "inward". His doctrine applies only to his own country. Totalitarian regimes are obsessed with the utopian idea of rebuilding the whole world, thus influencing not only the lives of their own citizens, but also the existence of neighbors. For example, the German Nazis dreamed of cleansing Europe of "wrong" peoples, and the Bolsheviks were going to arrange an international revolution.

Under totalitarianism, an ideology is built according to which everything in society must be redone: from everyday life to relations with others. Thus, the state roughly interferes with human privacy. It plays the role of an educator. on the contrary, it tries to depoliticize the masses - to instill in them the habit of not being interested in politics and public relations. People in such a country are poorly informed (in contrast to totalitarianism, where everyone is mobilized).

Society of Imaginary Freedom

Under authoritarianism, power is effectively usurped, but the elite still retains the semblance of democracy. What remains is the parliament, the formal separation of powers, parties and other attributes of a free society. Such a dictatorship can tolerate some internal social conflicts.

In an authoritarian country, influential groups remain (military, bureaucracy, industrialists, etc.). Defending their own interests (especially economic ones), they can block decisions that they do not want. Totalitarianism does not mean anything like that.

Impact on the economy

Authoritarian power seeks to preserve the traditional and customary estate, class, or tribal structure of society. Totalitarianism, on the other hand, completely changes the country according to its ideal. The previous model and internal partitions are necessarily destroyed. Liquidated Classes become masses.

The authorities in authoritarian countries (for example, in Latin America) are wary of the economic structure. If the military (junta) begins to rule, they become more likely controllers of specialists. All economic policy is built according to dry pragmatics. If a crisis is approaching and it threatens the authorities, then reforms begin.

(Form of exercise of power), although this is not necessary. For example, any revolution, including a democratic one, will be a manifestation of authoritarianism (since a revolution occurs when the existing legal system cannot cope with the current situation, and there is no other legal system yet. A revolution completely breaks down the existing legal system and, thus, being in a legal vacuum, authoritarianly declares himself the bearer of power).

Collegiate YouTube

1 / 5

The term "authoritarianism" was introduced into scientific circulation by the theorists of the Frankfurt School, meant a certain set of social characteristics inherent in both political culture and mass consciousness in general.

Authoritarianism is, firstly, a socio-political system based on subordination to the state or its leaders. Secondly, a social attitude or personality trait characterized by the belief that there should be strict and unconditional loyalty to the ruler in society, unquestioning submission of people to authorities and authorities.

A political regime consistent with the principles of authoritarianism means the absence of true democracy, both in terms of the free conduct of elections and in matters of government. It is often combined with the dictatorship of an individual (a group of individuals - an oligarchy), which manifests itself to one degree or another.

Typology

Traditional absolutist monarchies (examples: Ethiopia before 1974, Nepal before 2007, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and others).
Traditional authoritarian regimes of the oligarchic type. Typical for Latin American countries (examples: Guatemala, Cuba before 1959, Nicaragua until 1979 and others).
Hegemonic authoritarianism of the new oligarchy (examples: Cameroon, Tunisia, Philippines under F. Marcos in 1972-1985).
A number of countries of "socialist orientation" with all the peculiarities of the perception of socialism, its types, egalitarian traditions of their own culture, and so on (examples: Burma, Guinea, Mozambique, Venezuela, Tanzania).
Military regimes (examples: G.A. Nasser's regime in Egypt, J. Peron in Argentina, authoritarian regimes in Iraq, Peru and others).

Theocratic regimes, when political power is concentrated in the hands of the clergy, should also be singled out as a kind of authoritarianism.

Totalitarianism

The main difference between authoritarianism and totalitarianism is that authoritarian power is based on the personality of the leader, his ability to retain power and attract supporters. While in totalitarian states, the leader is nominated by the ruling elite (for example, the ruling party or religious organization), and the system of power is tied to the dominant role of this elite and its ideology. An authoritarian regime often ends with the death of a charismatic leader who has not left an equally powerful successor. A totalitarian regime is more stable and collapses only in the event of the decline of the entire system and its ideology.

	Totalitarianism	Authoritarianism
Charisma	High	It can be both low and high
Leader's Role	Leader as a function	Leader as an individual
Ideology	Present	Can be present or absent [ ]
Limiting pluralism	Present	None, although opposition political parties may be banned [ ]
Legitimacy	Often present	Can be present or absent

“Therefore, opposition to authoritarianism, as a rule, exists, although it differs significantly from oppositions in a democracy. What distinguishes oppositions under conditions of authoritarianism and democracy is their level of tolerance towards the ruling political group. The regime's intolerance necessarily generates an adequate reaction from the opposition - its main goal and the meaning of its activity is to remove the regime from the political scene. Naturally, the means chosen for this are by no means always legal and often come into conflict with what is officially recognized. "
From the book “Modern Political Regimes. Structure, typology, dynamics "A. P. Tsygankov

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru

Authoritarian (from Dat. Autoritas - power) regime - the state-political structure of society, the basis of which is the dictatorship of one person or group. At the same time, however, state control does not apply to non-political spheres: economy, culture, religion, etc.

Historical experience shows that an authoritarian regime arises, as a rule, in countries where a change in the social system takes place, accompanied by a sharp polarization of political forces; in countries where there are long-term economic and political crises, overcoming which by democratic means becomes impossible. Since such situations in the development of the world community are a very frequent phenomenon, it is obvious that authoritarianism belongs to fairly widespread political regimes. Both history and modern times know many examples of an authoritarian regime. In particular, in the second half of the XX century. authoritarian regimes arose in a number of countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America that had freed themselves from colonialism. In the USSR, after 1953, the transformation of a totalitarian regime into an authoritarian one begins.

The extraordinary conditions in which the authoritarian political regime "starts" determine the main goal it puts forward - to put things in order in the country, to ensure normal living conditions for society. This goal, in turn, determines the means of achieving it (first of all, it is the concentration of political power in a single center), as well as the possibilities and state of all spheres of social life and all social strata.

Since the specific conditions for the emergence of authoritarian regimes are different, each of them has its own distinctive characteristics. Our task includes, as in the study of democratic and totalitarian regimes, to highlight common features, attributing to all authoritarian regimes, and specific features allowing to talk about different types of authoritarianism. In addition, it is necessary to consider the difference between authoritarianism and totalitarianism.

1. Alienation of the people from power. It is carried either by one person or by a group. It can be beaten by a charismatic leader, a monarch, a military junta, dictators, populist leaders. They own unlimited and uncontrolled power by society. An authoritarian society creates a deep chasm between the people and political power. Both the state and the people avoid erecting bridges across this abyss.

2. Lack of a unified ideology. Authoritarian leaders (unlike totalitarian ones) do not justify their actions by striving for high goals, they take on the task of saving a society that is on the brink of an abyss, after which, according to them, they are ready to give up power.

3. Reliance on strength sufficient to force the disobedient to obey, if necessary. However, this regime does not resort to massive repression, as it happens under totalitarianism. Moreover, he can be popular with the population, especially if the positive results of his activity are quite obvious.

4. Monopolization of politics. All political activity becomes the exclusive function of political power. Accordingly, all other subjects of politics are prohibited: political opposition, political parties and others. public organizations In some cases, under authoritarianism, a limited number of trade unions and political parties are allowed, but they operate under the strict control of the authorities.

5. Refusal of complete, total control over society. The authoritarian regime in its most developed form is based on the principle that "everything is allowed except politics." Power, abandons unrealistic claims to universal control and leaves only a few zones under its full control: own safety, national defense, public order, foreign policy. In addition, the political power actively intervenes in the organization of social security and the development of a general development strategy. Economy, culture, religion, private life remain outside state control.

6. The formation of the ruling elite is not democratic, but through appointments from above. As a result, the entourage of an authoritarian leader is selected based on personal sympathy and loyalty to the leader, and not in accordance with business qualities and abilities.

Very often authoritarian regimes are defined as rule by force. The rationale behind this rule is to concentrate power in the hands of one or more leaders, without prioritizing public consensus on the legitimacy of their power. Therefore, in its pure form, authoritarianism can almost always be identified with the use of instruments of coercion and violence. The army, police, prisons and concentration camps serve as daily "arguments" for the regime in proving both the unshakability of its foundations and the validity of its claims to power.

At the same time, it would be an exaggeration to say that all authoritarian regimes meet this definition. In reality, such regimes quite often seek to use additional means of stabilization, relying, whenever possible, on the tradition and charisma of the leader. Moreover, historical experience convinces us that the values of traditions, religious and cultural-regional, are in the conditions of authoritarianism quite strong. Spain under Franco, Portugal under Salazar, Argentina under Peron can serve as convincing evidence of this. In this sense, authoritarianism should be distinguished from totalitarianism, which is, as it were, a continuation of the tendencies existing in the conditions of an authoritarian regime - such a continuation that gives rise to a completely new quality, a new kind of political regime with its own specific characteristics, institutions, principles of stabilization and the exercise of power.

R. Makridis has done a great job of comparing the regimes in detail. He traced how and through what mechanisms various regimes exercise their power in society.

Mechanisms for the exercise of power		Totalitarian	Democracy
1. Restrictions on the activities of the ruling structures			Yes - a lot
2. Responsibility of the governing structures		Weak (political party)	Significant
3. Organization of the structure of government: the state bureaucracy / military individual leader		Party controlled Yes (collective manual)	State and government agencies Subordinated Elective
4. Penetration political bodies into the structure of society			Limited
5. Mobilizing support			Various
6. Official ideology
	Weak / no	One batch	A bunch of
8. Police, force, intimidation
9. The rights of the individual (protection) in form in essence			Yes, mostly

Thus, we can single out the following characteristics that are universal for authoritarianism. All authoritarian regimes are distinguished by:

The desire to exclude political opposition (if any) from the process of articulating political positions and decision-making;

The desire to use force in resolving conflict situations and the lack of democratic mechanisms to control the exercise of power;

The desire to control all potentially oppositional social institutions - family, traditions, interest groups, means mass media and communications, etc .;

The relatively weak rootedness of power in society and the resulting desire and, at the same time, the inability of the regime to subordinate society to all-encompassing control;

Permanent, but most often not very effective searches by the regime for new sources of power (tradition and charisma of the leader) and a new ideology capable of uniting the elite and society;

The relative closeness of the ruling elite, which is combined with the presence of disagreements within it and groups fighting for power.

All of the above was vividly reflected in the definition of authoritarianism given by X. Linz. According to this definition, authoritarian systems are "political systems that are characterized by limited, although not initiated from above, political pluralism, the absence of a developed and leading ideology in the presence, however, of a certain type of mentality, the absence of broad and intensive political mobilization, excluding certain periods of development. - systems in which a leader or a narrow group exercises power within vaguely defined but completely predictable boundaries. "

In order to keep unlimited power in its hands, the authoritarian regime circulates the elites not through the competition of candidates in the elections, but by co-optation (volitional introduction) of them into the governing structures. Due to the fact that the process of transferring power in such regimes is carried out not through the procedures for replacing leaders established by law, but by force, these regimes are not legitimate. However, despite the lack of support from the people, autocracies can exist for a long time and quite successfully. They are capable of effectively solving strategic tasks, despite their illegitimacy. An example of such effective from the point of view of the implementation of economic and social reforms there may be authoritarian regimes in Chile, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Argentina, countries of the Arab East.

1. Traditional absolutist monarchies (examples: Ethiopia before 1974, Nepal before 2007, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and others).

4. A number of countries of "socialist orientation" with all the peculiarities of the perception of socialism, its types, egalitarian traditions of their own culture, and so on (examples: USSR, Belarus, Burma, Guinea, Mozambique, Venezuela, Tanzania and others).

5. Military regimes (examples: the regime of GA Nasser in Egypt, H. Peron in Argentina, Chile under Pinochet, Poland under Marshal Pilsudski, authoritarian regimes in Iraq, Peru and others).

They are of three types:

a) possessing a strictly dictatorial, terrorist nature and personal nature of power (for example, the regime of I. Amin in Uganda);

b) military juntas carrying out structural reforms (for example, the regime of General Pinochet in Chile);

c) one-party regimes that existed in Egypt under G.A. Nasser, in Peru under X. Peron, etc.

Theocratic regimes, when political power is concentrated in the hands of the clergy, should also be singled out as a kind of authoritarianism: for example, Iran after the 1979 revolution. True, in terms of the sum of its characteristics, theocratic regime is very similar to the totalitarian one.

Some researchers also single out "neo-authoritarian regimes", which are characterized by the admission of mass parties, the existence of opposition, elections, but the election results are falsified: for example, in Mexico.

Military regimes are a kind of authoritarian regime in which power is either held by the military or, in fact, exercised by the top of the military behind the "facade" of a civilian government. A characteristic feature of military regimes is the strong personalization of power. These are the regimes of General Zia ul Haq in Pakistan, Amin in Uganda. Military or "praetorian" regimes most often arise as a result of coups d'état.

The establishment of military dictatorships, as a rule, is accompanied by the abolition of the previous constitution, the dissolution of parliament, the complete prohibition of any opposition forces, and the concentration of legislative and executive power in the hands of the military council. Similar regimes existed in many countries in Africa, the East, and Latin America. A distinctive feature of military dictatorships is the wide scope of terrorist activities carried out by the army, police and special services. As a rule, military regimes are unable to provide economic efficiency... They are characterized by chronic inflation, economic uncontrollability, and political corruption. More often than not, military regimes fail to mobilize the masses to solve social problems, secure support for themselves, and solve problems associated with the institutionalization and legitimation of power. Political analysts note that the weakest points of this regime, along with inefficiency and illegitimacy, is the administrative style of decision-making.

An authoritarian-bureaucratic regime is considered a type of military regime. Its features were analyzed in detail by G. O "Donnell. From his point of view, power under an authoritarian bureaucratic regime is exercised by a bloc consisting of three political forces: the bureaucracy, dominated by technocrats; the national bourgeoisie, which controls the largest national companies and is simultaneously connected with the international capital, and the military.

The competitive oligarchy (the modern oligarchic regime) is characterized by sufficient openness and legitimacy, while maintaining a monopoly on the power of the most powerful economic clans. It is characterized by such political institutions as parliament, elections, parties. However, the power of the most influential nationalities is hidden behind the facade of democratic institutions. economic groups, whose interests are taken into account in the first place by the political system. An example of a modern oligarchic regime is the government in Colombia, where, since 1957, two parties - the conservative and the liberal - agreed on the distribution of government posts and the election of a certain presidential candidate. Social basis modern oligarchic regime are socially and politically passive segments of the population.

The populist, or mobilization, regime is based on the rule of a single party, proclaiming modernization as its goal. Such a party is usually led by a charismatic leader. Unlike totalitarianism, the populist regime relies not on ideology, but on nationalism. It relies more on ethnic than on social groups. This type of regime is characterized by the mobilization of the masses aimed at maintaining a national leader. The means of legitimizing power used by the populist regime are: manipulation of a plebiscite; involving the people in politics through mass demonstrations, demonstrations, rallies of support; exaltation of "little people"; rallying society in the face of "international imperialism" and cosmopolitan capitalism. The authorities are inclined to seek support in the middle strata, which do not feel sympathy for the oligarchy. A specific feature of the populist regime - the strengthening of statist principles in economic, social and spiritual life - reflects the paternalistic expectations of the widest popular masses. Vivid examples are the regimes of Vargas in Brazil, Nasser in Egypt, Gaddafi in Libya.

Many political scientists in Lately the authoritarianism of development began to be singled out as a separate type, the main features of which are, in contrast to the "traditional", not the conservation of existing social relations, but promoting and stimulating social and economic modernization. The degree of authoritarianism is determined by the need to preserve the unity and integrity of society with the growth of conflicts caused by modernization. The state becomes the initiator of changes in the economic and social life taking place under his control. An example of this kind of regime can be modern China, Singapore, South Korea of the 1970s-1980s, Thailand, etc.

Historically, authoritarianism has existed in different forms in a wide variety of eras and in different countries(for example, ancient Greek and Oriental despotism and tyranny - Persia, Sparta, many other feudal absolutist regimes, etc.). His theory was first developed by ultra-conservative and reactionary theorists early XIX v. as a response to the French Revolution and the socialist movements by J. de Maistre and L. de Bonald. With the development of industrial society, the idea of authoritarianism began to take on the shades of a constructive political ideology. The counterrevolutionary (in J. de Maistre's) idea of order has lost its monarchical orientation, the concept of absolutist authoritarianism has disappeared: the absolute power of the king, independent of people, is the reason for politics; its ministers (apparatus of power) are means; a society of subjects who obey is a consequence (L. de Bonald).

In the 19th century, authoritarianism became a permanent and important trend in German political thought and replenished with ideas of national and state unity that it is intended to implement. By the end of the century, authoritarianism came to be seen as a means of powerful national and social mobilization and management from above of the state-building process (G. Traitschke). The Spaniard D. Cortez saw in an authoritarian political order that ensures the sanctity of obedience, a condition for the cohesion of the nation, state and society. O. Spengler also believed that, unlike liberalism, which generates anarchy, authoritarianism fosters discipline and establishes the necessary hierarchy in society. Many scientists and politicians consider this type of government (as, for example, I. Ilyin, in the form of an "authoritarian-educating dictatorship") as the most optimal form of political support for the transition of backward countries to modern democracy.

A characteristic feature of an agrarian society is the long-term stability of the methods of organizing production, resettlement, and employment. Loyalty to traditions, following the example of fathers and grandfathers is a fundamental element of their organization. In an agrarian society, a monarchy based on a centuries-old tradition, with an understandable order of succession to the throne, is a natural political organization.

M. Olson wrote that with a dynastic inheritance of power, the likelihood that the eldest son of the king is best able to fulfill the duties of a ruler is small. However, citizens nevertheless rightly believe that they will benefit if the hereditary head of state is guided by the long-term benefits of the country, that agreement on who will be the next ruler is beneficial for everyone. In stable monarchies, bloody wars for the succession to the throne after the death of the sovereign, ruining the peasants, are rare. They do happen, but as an exception, not a rule. The stability of the ruling dynasty makes the sovereign consider the country as a property that will belong to children and grandchildren. Hence the need to take care of maintaining the prosperity of the subjects, not to exhaust them with ruinous taxes. The stability of the political system makes it possible to form norms of behavior associated with the idea of a virtuous sovereign, a ruler who observes traditions, who cares about the prosperity of the country. Confucianism is a prime example of the ideology behind such a rule.

Rules for the transfer of power to agrarian societies, the role played by representative bodies (popular assemblies, meetings of the nobility) in determining the order of inheritance after the death of the monarch are different. Yet for much of the agrarian world, the monarchy, in which the heir to the throne is the eldest son of the reigning monarch, is more the rule than the exception.

Forming in European city-states, then in territorially integrated political entities that are not cities, a system of political and economic institutions based on taxpayer democracy is opening the way for unprecedented economic recovery. This is the most serious challenge to traditional monarchies in the entire thousand-year history of the agrarian world. Changes in the economy and lifestyle undermine the basis of the political stability of the hereditary monarchy - tradition.

If there is room for the monarchy, it is in the performance of ceremonial functions, and not in what is associated with the government of the country.

TO early XVIII v. role models become the most economically the developed countries Europe - the Netherlands, England - countries with strong parliaments that control executive power. It is there that Peter the Great goes to adopt advanced technological experience. He, of course, does not intend to transplant Dutch or English institutions on Russian soil, or to create an authoritative parliament. But for him it is obvious where it is necessary to master the most modern technologies that are useful in military affairs.

In the countries of Western Europe, as well as in some of their colonies, the experience of developed states with an influential parliament (primarily England and Holland) raises doubts about the rationality of the monarchical structure of the political system. For the American thinker and publicist of the late 18th century. T. Payne's idea that the eldest son of a monarch is the best ruler seems comical.

In continental Europe in the 17th - 18th centuries. an ideological wave rises, undermining faith in the rationality of absolutist monarchies as a way of political organization. A paradigm is taking root in the European public consciousness, within the framework of which the elected parliaments are a necessary element of the rational structure of the political system; there is a growing conviction that it is they who should establish taxes, determine how state financial resources will be spent, and form the executive branch. Other ways of organizing society are recognized as not consistent with common sense. All this prepares large-scale changes in political life, The French Revolution and the Perception of Its Ideas in Europe.

The spread of these ideas about the structure of society, albeit slower than in northwestern Europe, can also be seen in the example of Russia, which is far from the center of European development. The Decembrists, for example, were convinced that the preservation of an absolute monarchy was incompatible with the acquisition of the status of a civilized, developed country.

Undermining the legitimacy of the institutions of the traditional monarchy does not guarantee that democratic institutions are immediately resilient. Even where parliaments had a centuries-old tradition, their role was limited: they are periodically meeting bodies that make decisions on issues related to the size of taxation, spending public funds... As such, they are a familiar, well-established institution. Transforming them into supreme body power - a break with tradition. Troubles and disorders are associated with such a transition.

When monarchical institutions are illegitimate, and democratic ones have not yet stabilized, the likelihood increases that a candidate for ruler who is able to rely on force can impose his will on society, regardless of what political structure the majority of citizens consider reasonable and acceptable. In that political basis authoritarian regimes in Europe, such as the regimes of O. Cromwell and N. Bonaparte. The threat of such a development of events in countries that have entered the process of modern economic growth persists for a long time. In Western Europe, with its centuries-old parliamentary tradition, the last authoritarian regimes were dismantled and replaced by democratic ones only in the mid-1970s.

Eastern Europe lagged behind in this respect for a decade and a half.

One of the factors that facilitated the coming of authoritarian regimes to power was social disorganization associated with the initial stages of modern economic growth. The difficulty of adapting the first and second generations of migrants from the countryside to life in the city, the destruction of traditional forms of social support in the absence of new ones adequate to the conditions of an urbanized society, creates the basis for political mobilization of the lowest income groups of the population. The owners, taxpayers, who traditionally played key roles in the European political process, are usually not ready for this.

There are countries that have demonstrated the ability to solve these problems in the development of democratic institutions. For example, the British political system turned out to be flexible and adaptive, and made it possible, step by step, to include the entire population in the electorate without a severe crisis. But this was not the case everywhere. The fear that the political mobilization of workers and peasants will lead to socialist experiments and the redistribution of property is the most important factor in the support of authoritarian regimes by the middle class in the second half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century.

In the non-European world, where there is no long history of authoritative parliaments and the ability to rely on ancient tradition, ensuring political stability in the early stages of modern economic growth is a more difficult task than in northwestern Europe. The contrast between the military weakness of traditional regimes and the power of the West that has gone ahead (military defeats, imposed treaties that turn non-European powers into colonies or semi-colonies) is striking. It makes it inevitable to undermine the legitimacy base of traditional monarchies. For the educated part of the elite, it is obvious that borrowing European models and methods of political organization is a necessary prerequisite for development. However, society has neither institutions nor traditions to rely on to carry out such a transformation, there are no ideas about freedom inherited from medieval Europe. individual groups population, their right to protection from the arbitrariness of the ruler, there is no deep-rooted conviction in the legality of resistance to his arbitrariness, which played a significant role in the formation of the modern concept of a free society.

This is the reason for the long period of instability and institutional crisis. The legitimacy of traditional institutions has been undermined, and new democratic ways of organizing political life have not yet become sustainable. These are the conditions under which direct violence (victory in a civil war, a coup d'etat) opens the way to power.

In the early 1960s, when decolonization led to the emergence of dozens of new states, many researchers considered it irrefutable that authoritarian forms of government were optimal for them. Thus, in 1959 K. De Schweinitz wrote that for economic growth it is necessary to limit the participation of society in political affairs.

Usually, as noted above, authoritarian regimes come to power by force. There are exceptions. Sometimes, future autocrats find themselves at the head of state through a democratic procedure and then use their power to restrict the rights and freedoms of citizens. They can build on potential state structures or get the opportunity to use violence against opponents in the absence of opposition from the state. A. Hitler is an example of a politician who used both strategies.

Regardless of how the authoritarian regime was formed, the role of violence in its structure is high. As long as the leadership of the state, law enforcement agencies, and society are convinced that in order to maintain power and suppress opposition, the rulers can use force against their own people, the authoritarian government is able to maintain political stability. If the authorities and society believe in this, repression can only be resorted to in a limited and selective manner. Otherwise, they have to be made massive. But this does not help the autocrat to retain power for a long time.

These include, first, the specific role of the community. The political and cultural experience of the countries of Asia, Africa and, to a lesser extent, Latin America is not permeated with the idea of the independent value of human life, does not contain an idea of the positive meaning of individuality. A person is thought of as a part of a whole, as a member a certain society, the norms of which he must obey both in thoughts and in behavior, i.e. the collective prevails over the personal. The role of different kinds of leaders is also great, who take upon themselves the right to interpret norms and embody in their own person the unity of the community, clan, etc.

Secondly, “in the third world” the state has a significant weight, since the civil society is not yet developed. There is no powerful middle stratum capable of becoming the backbone of democracy and a strong civilian power. The role of the executive power, which is the consolidating force of society, is growing, since it is divided by numerous religious, ethnic, class and other partitions and no political force in it can become a hegemon. In this state of affairs, only the state can mobilize all funds for modernization and accelerated development.

These moments create the preconditions for an authoritarian government. Almost all attempts to familiarize third world countries, for example, African countries, to democracy by copying constitutions and political systems the metropolitan countries were unsuccessful. The fragile "democracies" established there were not the result of a long and stubborn struggle of the masses themselves for their rights, as was the case in Europe.

Today, authoritarian regimes are shattering democracy in more sophisticated and sophisticated ways, receiving generous funding for this purpose. This new class of dictators poses the most serious threat to the emergence of an international system based on the rule of law, respect for human rights and open expression.

Today, many organizations have convened experts to analyze the methods by which five influential states - China, Iran, Pakistan, Russia and Venezuela - are hindering the development of democracy in their countries and beyond. The research has resulted in a new report titled "Undermining Democracy: Dictators of the 21st Century." It analyzes the common features of these regimes, as well as how they have managed in recent years to achieve some reduction in political freedoms around the world.

These countries are very reminiscent of traditional authoritarian regimes in their actions to undermine democracy using a range of tools and techniques, including manipulation legal system, media control and outright intimidation. The ruling factions in each country defend their power by rewarding adherents and punishing opponents without any respect for the rule of law. There is nothing new here - dictatorship is like a dictatorship.

However, these cases are unique in their own way, representing a completely new phenomenon. They are unique in their innovative approaches and in the sophistication with which they use discussion and communication on the Internet for their subversive purposes. When they fail to control access to the Web, these regimes throw armies of commentators and provocateurs into battle to divert and disrupt perfectly reasonable and legitimate online discussions.

These regimes have also adapted to modern global capitalism by using the market to increase their control. China, for example, has turned the censorship of both old and new media into a source of profit. In traditional media, the authorities are pushing journalists and editors to write articles that are popular and commercially profitable - but also distract from politics. China is at the forefront of the outsourcing trend of censorship and is increasingly monitoring by private companies. This kind of activity raises doubts about the generally accepted view that the Internet is an instrument of democracy.

New authoritarian regimes are also shaping international values using the most advanced and well-funded media ventures. The Kremlin has launched the Russia Today TV channel, which broadcasts on North America, Europe and Asia, having spent on this multimillion-dollar funds. Iran in 2007 created an English-speaking satellite channel Press TV, which employs several hundred foreign employees. And China is willing to spend huge sums of money to expand its media activities overseas in an attempt to improve the country's international image. According to incoming reports, Beijing has allocated at least $ 6 billion for this purpose.

In the meantime, these regimes are not limited to media investments. By distributing multibillion-dollar grants to other countries, they hinder international efforts to improve public administration and reduce corruption, which are implemented through assistance provided on certain conditions. Chinese leaders have put forward the doctrine of win-win relationships with other countries, pushing Latin American, African, Asian and Arab states to create mutually beneficial agreements with Beijing based on the principle of non-interference. China's aid program is very attractive to cash-hungry recipients. According to estimates The World Bank China is currently the largest creditor in Africa. Russia, Iran and Venezuela are also using their oil wealth to forge international alliances and finance overseas clients, especially in their own regions.

As part of a massive effort to export authoritarian influence, these regimes are also working hard to undermine international organizations rules that support democracy and human rights. These include the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Organization of American States and the Council of Europe. At the United Nations, these countries are forming temporary coalitions to suppress criticism, oppose sanctions and promote anti-democratic measures.

But there are also some things new to these regimes that they don't.

Today's dictators recognize and understand that complete control over information and economic activity is impossible and unnecessary. Instead, they modified their traditional mechanisms of coercion, enriching them with more sophisticated methods of influence. Political discourse becomes "controlled", and there is no obvious diktat in it. This controllability is ensured by selectively suppressing news and information or reworking them. And although the state absorbs and seizes control of the most important industrial and commercial enterprises, the days of the command economy will never return. Citizens are allowed to enjoy personal freedoms, including travel abroad and an abundance of consumer goods, which was unthinkable in the era of Mao and Brezhnev.

During the " cold war"the nature and purpose of authoritarian states were more clearly visible. In contrast to that period, modern autocrats pose a less visible danger, having entered the global economy and taking part in the work of many reputable financial and political institutions the world.

So far, policies and statesmen in democratic countries have failed to find an effective approach to eliminate these dangers. This is particularly troubling because the lack of such a clear approach coincides with the intensification of debate within the United States about the inclusion of a new, fourth dimension in US foreign policy - democracy, which should act alongside its traditional components such as defense, diplomacy and development. And the new dictators will be very happy if they see that such a fourth dimension falls out of the geometry of American foreign policy.

In the modern conditions of post-socialist countries, “pure” authoritarianism, not relying on active mass support and some democratic institutions, can hardly be a tool for progressive reform of society and can turn into a criminal dictatorial regime of personal power, no less destructive for the country than totalitarianism. Therefore, the combination of authoritarian and democratic elements, strong government and its control over citizens is the most important practical task on the path of constructive reform of society.

Authoritarianism is a state system in which unlimited power is vested in one person or a group of persons who do not allow political opposition, but preserve the autonomy of the individual and society in non-political spheres.

3. Baranov N.A. Evolution of views on populism in modern political science. - SPb., 2001.

4. Baranov N.A. Populism as a political activity. - SPb., 2002.

5. Gadzhiev K.S. Political Science: Tutorial... - M., 1995.

6. Course of Political Science: Textbook. - 2nd ed., Rev. and add. - M., 2002.

7. Malko A.V. Political and legal life Russia: actual problems: textbook. - M., 2000.

8. Mukhaev R.T. Political science: a textbook for students of law and humanitarian faculties. - M., 2000.

9. Foundations of political science. Textbook for higher educational institutions. Part 2. - M., 1995.

10. Political science. Textbook for universities / Edited by M.A. Vasilik. - M., 1999.

11. Gaider E. Death of the Ipmeria. Lessons for modern Russia- M., 2006

12. Soloviev A.I. Political science: Political theory, Political Technologies: A Textbook for University Students. - M., 2001.

13. Sumbatyan Yu.G. Political regimes in modern world: comparative analysis... Study guide. - M., 1999.

14. Friedrich K., Brzezinski Z. Totalitarian dictatorship and autocracy // Totalitarianism: what is it? Vol.2 / Ed. count L.N. Verchenov et al. - M., 1992.

Posted on Allbest.ru

Definition of the term

An authoritarian political regime is a practically unlimited form of power of one person or a group of persons, while retaining the appearance of some democratic institutions. Also, with him, part of the freedoms for the population in the economy, spiritual life or in another area may be preserved, if these freedoms do not pose a threat to the regime itself.

Classification of political regimes

In order to understand the place of authoritarianism among other political regimes, it is necessary to pay attention to their classification. There are many types of forms of government. Three types dominate among them: authoritarian, totalitarian, democratic political regimes. In addition, anarchy is separately distinguished, which is defined as anarchy.

A democratic regime in its ideal form is characterized by the maximum participation of the people in governing the state and in the turnover of power. The totalitarian system, on the contrary, is marked by the complete control of the authorities over all areas of life and activities of citizens, who, in turn, do not take part in solving state issues. Moreover, power is often actually usurped by one person or a group of people from a narrow circle.

An authoritarian regime is something between democratic and totalitarian. Many political scientists present it as a compromise version of these systems. We will talk about the features of authoritarianism and its differences from other political regimes further.

Differences between authoritarian and democratic regimes

The main difference between authoritarianism and democracy is that the people are actually removed from the government of the country. Elections and referendums, if they are held, are purely formal in nature, since their result is deliberately predetermined.

At the same time, under authoritarianism, pluralism, that is, a multiparty system, can exist, as well as the preservation of democratic institutions that continue to function, which creates the illusion of the people governing the country. This is what makes the authoritarian and democratic political regimes in common.

Differences between authoritarianism and totalitarianism

The main difference is that under authoritarianism, the basis of power is the personal qualities of a leader or a group of leaders who have managed to seize the levers of government. Totalitarianism, on the other hand, is based on ideology. Often, totalitarian leaders are nominated by the ruling elite, which can come to power even in a democratic way. Thus, under authoritarianism, the role of the leader is much higher than under totalitarianism. For example, an authoritarian regime can fall with the death of a leader, but a totalitarian system can only be ended by a general decline in the governance structure or by military intervention by a third party.

As mentioned above, totalitarian and authoritarian regimes differ also in that the former often completely lacks democratic institutions, and under authoritarianism they can exist, although they have, by and large, a decorative function. Also, an authoritarian regime, unlike a totalitarian one, can allow the functioning of various political parties, and even a moderate opposition. But, nevertheless, real forces capable of harming the ruling regime, both under authoritarianism and under totalitarianism, are prohibited.

In addition, these two systems are also united by the fact that they lack real democracy and the ability of the people to rule the state.

Signs of an authoritarian system

An authoritarian regime of power has a number of features that distinguish it from other political systems. It is they that make it possible to distinguish this type of government from other forms of government existing in the world. Below we will analyze the main features of an authoritarian regime.

One of the main features of this system is the form of government in the form of autocracy, dictatorship or oligarchy. This implies the actual government of one person or a limited group of people. Access of ordinary citizens to this group is either completely impossible or significantly limited. This actually means that the government will become beyond the control of the people. Even if national elections to government bodies do take place, they are purely nominal in nature, with a predetermined outcome.

An authoritarian regime is also distinguished by the monopolization of government by one person or a certain political force. This allows you to actually control and manage all branches of government - executive, legislative and judicial. More often than not, it is the representatives of the executive branch who usurp the functions of other structures. In turn, this fact leads to increased corruption at the top of society, since in fact the management and control bodies represent the same persons.

Signs of an authoritarian political regime are expressed in the absence of real opposition. The authorities may allow the presence of a “tame” opposition, which acts as a screen designed to testify to the democratic nature of society. But in fact, such parties, on the contrary, further strengthen the authoritarian regime, in fact, serving it. The same forces that are capable of really resisting the authorities are not allowed to participate in political struggle and are subject to repression.

There are signs of an authoritarian regime in the economic sphere as well. First of all, they are expressed in the control of people in power and their relatives over the largest enterprises in the country. In the hands of these people, not only political power is concentrated, but also the management of financial flows aimed at their personal enrichment. A person who has no connections in the highest circles, even with good business qualities, has no chance of becoming financially successful, since the economy is monopolized by those in power. However, these features of an authoritarian regime are not an obligatory attribute.

In turn, in an authoritarian society, the country's leadership and their family members are actually above the law. Their crimes are hushed up and go unpunished. The power structures of the country and law enforcement agencies are thoroughly corrupt and not controlled by society.

Moreover, this system of power does not seek to completely control society. An authoritarian regime focuses on absolute political and significant economic control, and grants substantial freedoms in the areas of culture, religion and education.

The main method of governing the country, which is used under an authoritarian regime, is command and control.

It should be noted that in order to judge a management system as authoritarian, it is not necessary to have all of the above features. A few of them are enough for this. At the same time, the existence of one of these features does not automatically make the state authoritarian. In fact, there are no clear criteria by which to differentiate between authoritarianism and totalitarianism with democracy. But the presence in the state of most of the above-described factors already serves as a confirmation that the system of government is authoritarian.

Classification of authoritarian regimes

Authoritarian systems in different countries can take a variety of forms, often outwardly dissimilar to each other. In this regard, it is customary to divide them into several typological types. Among them are the following:

absolutist monarchy;
sultanist regime;
military-bureaucratic regime;
racial democracy;
corporate authoritarianism;
post-totalitarian regimes;
postcolonial regimes;
socialist authoritarianism.

In the future, we will dwell in more detail on each of the types presented above.

Absolutist monarchy

This type of authoritarianism is inherent in modern absolute and dualistic monarchies. In such states, power is inherited. The monarch has either absolute powers to govern the country, or weakly limited.

The main examples of an authoritarian regime of this type are Nepal (until 2007), Ethiopia (until 1974), as well as the modern states of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Morocco. Moreover, the latter country is not an absolute monarchy, but a typical constitutional (dualistic) one. But, despite this, the sultan's power in Morocco is so strong that this country can be classified as an authoritarian state.

Sultanist regime

This type of authoritarian regime is so named because the power of the ruler in the countries where it is applied is comparable to the power of the medieval sultans. Officially, the position of the head of such states may have different names, but in most of the known cases they held the presidency. In addition, under the sultanist regime, there is the possibility of inheriting power, although this is not legally enshrined. The most famous leaders of countries dominated by this type of authoritarian regime were Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Rafael Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, François Duvalier in Haiti. The latter, by the way, managed to transfer power to his son Jean-Claude.

Sultanist regimes are characterized by the maximum concentration of power in one hand in comparison with other autocratic systems. Their distinguishing feature is the absence of ideology, the prohibition of a multi-party system, as well as absolute autocracy.

Military-bureaucratic regime

A distinctive feature of this type of authoritarian regime is the seizure of power in the country by a group of military men through a coup. At first, all power is concentrated in the hands of the military, but in the future, representatives of the bureaucracy are increasingly involved in management. In the future, this type of government can gradually take the path of democratization.

The main factors that lead to the establishment of military regimes are dissatisfaction with the existing government and the fear of revolution from below. It is the last factor that further affects the limitation democratic freedoms and the right to choose. The exclusion of the intelligentsia from power, which is opposed to such a regime, is its main task.

The most typical representatives of this type of authoritarianism are the regime of Nasser in Egypt, Pinochet in Chile, Perón in Argentina, and the juntas of 1930 and 1969 in Brazil.

Racial democracy

Despite the fact that the name of this type of authoritarianism contains the word "democracy", this political regime grants freedoms and rights only to representatives of a certain nationality or race. Other nationalities are not allowed to participate in the political process, including through violence.

The most typical example of racial democracy is South Africa during the apartheid period.

Corporate authoritarianism

The corporate form of authoritarianism is considered its most typical form. It arises in societies with a relatively developed economy, in which various oligarchic groups (corporations) come to power. In such a state structure, ideology is practically absent, and the economic and other interests of the group that came to power play a decisive role. As a rule, in states with corporate authoritarianism, there is a multi-party system, but these parties cannot play a significant role in political life because of the apathy of society towards them.

This type of political regime became most widespread in Latin America, in particular in Guatemala, Nicaragua (until 1979), and Cuba during the reign of Batista. There were also examples of corporate authoritarianism in Europe. This regime manifested itself most vividly in Portugal during the reign of Salazar and in Spain during the Franco dictatorship.

Post-totalitarian regimes

This is a special type of authoritarian regimes that are formed in societies moving along the path from totalitarianism to democracy. At the same time, the phase of authoritarianism is not at all necessary on this road, but it is inevitable in those former totalitarian countries where it was not possible to quickly build a full-fledged democratic society.

Post-totalitarian regimes are characterized by the concentration of significant economic assets in the hands of representatives of the former party nomenklatura and people close to them, as well as the military elite. Thus, they turn into an oligarchy.

Postcolonial regimes

As with post-totalitarian regimes, in many post-colonial countries, authoritarianism is a phase in the movement towards democracy. True, the development of these states often stops at this stage for many decades. As a rule, this form of power is established in countries with a poorly developed economy and an imperfect political system.

Socialist authoritarianism

This type of authoritarianism is manifested in the peculiarities of the development of socialist society in certain countries of the world. It is formed on the basis of a special perception of socialism within these states, which has nothing in common with the so-called European socialism or real social democracy.

In states with this form of government, there is a one-party system and there is no legal opposition. Countries with socialist authoritarianism often have a fairly strong leadership role. In addition, socialism is quite often combined with mild nationalism.

Among modern countries socialist authoritarianism is most pronounced in Venezuela, Mozambique, Guinea, Tanzania.

general characteristics

As you can see, an authoritarian regime is a rather ambiguous form of government with no clear boundaries to define. Its place on the political map lies between the democratic and totalitarian systems. The general characteristic of an authoritarian regime can be voiced as a compromise between the two regimes.

Under an authoritarian regime, some freedoms are allowed in relation to members of society, but as long as they do not threaten the ruling elite. As soon as a threat begins to emanate from a particular force, political repression is applied against it. But, unlike a totalitarian society, these repressions are not massive, but are applied selectively and narrowly.

The authoritarian (from Lat. Auctoritas - power) regime can be viewed as a kind of "compromise" between totalitarian and democratic political regimes. On the one hand, it is softer, more liberal than totalitarianism, and on the other hand, it is much tougher, more anti-people than democratic.

Authoritarian regime- the state-political structure of society in which political power is exercised by a specific person (class, party, elite group and etc.) with minimal participation of the people. The main characteristic of this regime is authoritarianism as a method of ruling and government, as a kind of social relations (for example, Spain during the reign of Franco, Chile during the reign of Pinochet).

In the center and in the localities, there is a concentration of power in the hands of one or several closely interconnected bodies of the state (or one strong leader), while simultaneously alienating the people from the real levers of state power;

The principle of separation of powers is ignored, limited (often the president, executive and administrative structures subordinate all other bodies to themselves, are endowed with legislative and judicial powers);

The role of representative authorities is limited, although they may exist;

The court essentially acts as an auxiliary institution, along with it, extrajudicial bodies can be used;

The scope of the principles of election of state bodies and officials, accountability and control of their population has been narrowed or reduced to naught;

Command and administrative methods dominate as methods of state administration, at the same time there is no mass terror;

Censorship and "semi-publicity" persist;

Partial pluralism is allowed;

Human and civil rights and freedoms are proclaimed, but not really ensured;

“Power” structures are practically beyond the control of society and are sometimes used for purely political purposes, etc.

Despotic regime there is absolutely arbitrary, unlimited power based on arbitrariness.

Tyrannical regime based on one-man rule, the usurpation of power by the tyrant and cruel methods of its implementation. However, unlike despotism, the tyrant's power is sometimes established by violent, aggressive means, often by displacing the legitimate power with the help of a coup d'etat.

Cleric Mode based on the actual domination of religious leaders in society and the state. The head of state is at the same time the religious leader of the nation, concentrating in his hands not only secular, but also spiritual power (Iran).

Military (military-dictatorial) regime is based on the power of the military elite, which is established as a result of a coup against the legitimate rule of civilians. Military regimes rule either collectively (like a junta), or one of the military ranks, most often a general or a senior officer, is at the head of the state. The army turns into a dominant socio-political force, realizes both internal and external functions of the state. Under the conditions of such an anti-democratic regime, an extensive military-police apparatus is being created, which includes, in addition to the army and special services, a large number of other bodies, including those of an extra-constitutional nature, for political control over the population, public associations, ideological indoctrination of citizens, combating anti-government movements, etc. The constitution and many legislative acts are canceled, which are replaced by acts of the military authorities. A typical example is the military rule in Myanmar (formerly Burma), Iraq under Saddam Hussein, in a number of states in Tropical Africa.

1) if under totalitarianism universal control is established, then authoritarianism presupposes the presence of spheres of social life that are not covered by state control;

2) under totalitarian rule, mass systematic terror is carried out in relation to opponents, while in an authoritarian society, the tactics of selective repression are carried out, aimed at preventing the emergence of opposition. At the same time, a concept that considers classical German and Italian fascism as an extreme form of authoritarianism has a right to exist in the literature.