Svolik also states another cause of regime breakdown that targets personalist leaders. He states ‘ heavy reliance on repression - typically through the military who have the knowledge and apparatus to care out repression - entails a fundamental moral hazard’ . The very agents that carry out the regimes commands of repression actually gain strength each time they are used, empowering a potential threat to the dictator and regime. Once the military become an essential agent against popular uprisings and discontent, they accrue a leverage that can be exploited. As Machiavelli warns those who come to power through the means of soldiers and military men become hostages of “him who granted them the state”. In many examples, the regime leaders have …show more content…
However, Svolik argues that “We should abandon the practice of classifying dictatorships into a few ideal types according to their descriptive features”. He sees the typical Geddes’s classification of different forms of authoritarian regimes as flawed because it results in “categories that are neither mutually exclusive or collectively exhaustive”, meaning that by putting the very fluid and subtle nuances of different regimes into very rigid boxes, analysing ‘why some regimes are stable and other less stable’ become more difficult. With examples of all three forms of authoritarianism remaining stable and others unstable I agree with Svolik. By categorising the ‘form’ of a regime simply based on its main support mechanism or how the deal with accession, we can not truly understand why certain authoritarian regimes are more stable then …show more content…
With greater media coverage and lobbying by NGO’s and human rights groups, the pressure on Western governments to act and intervene is much higher. With blatant abusus of power occurring on their doorstep, is a lot harder for the Western world to ignore. Finally, L&W say that high levels of linkage can threaten an authoritarian regime is by inadvertently redistributing power in the regime in a way that favours democracy. Ties to influential foreign actors can help to protect regime opposition groups from repression by enhancing their international prestige. Opposition ties to Western governments can raise their profile while also providing them with resources that help to level the playing field against entrenched authoritarian
The Legacy of Russia and the Soviet Union - Authoritarian and Repressive Traditions that Refuse to Die
and Altemeyer’s approaches to authoritarianism share many similarities, such as the more descriptive approach to their work than explanatory route, where neither clearly identify the source of authoritarianism. (Jones, 2002. Cited in The Open University, 2015, p50)
Under a backdrop of systematic fear and terror, the Stalinist juggernaut flourished. Stalin’s purges, otherwise known as the “Great Terror”, grew from his obsession and desire for sole dictatorship, marking a period of extreme persecution and oppression in the Soviet Union during the late 1930s. “The purges did not merely remove potential enemies. They also raised up a new ruling elite which Stalin had reason to think he would find more dependable.” (Historian David Christian, 1994). While Stalin purged virtually all his potential enemies, he not only profited from removing his long-term opponents, but in doing so, also caused fear in future ones. This created a party that had virtually no opposition, a new ruling elite that would be unstoppable, and in turn negatively impacted a range of sections such as the Communist Party, the people of Russia and the progress in the Soviet community, as well as the military in late 1930 Soviet society.
Authoritarianism could be fascist, communist, or militaristic; all emphasized nationalism to some degree. It, too, emerged from the Great Depression but with an aggressive military expansion and a string leadership. This ideology developed in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, communistic Soviet Union, and militaristic Japan. Short term, it was successful; however, it was not successful long
people decide that they want a dictatorship. If I was a ruler during the period of the
... towards the enemies of the government helps fear remain an effective governing force. An example today of a totalitarian regime that uses fear to control is Iraq. The leader Saddam Hussein gained his power and maintains his regime by performing brutal acts to his enemies to instill fear in his population. The fear and oppression he places on his people make thousands of them support religious ideals. During his presidential election Saddam received a hundred percent of the population votes in his favor. The majority of the Iraqis that voted for Saddam would vote against him if they did not fear Saddam's secret police. Lastly in Iraq people are paranoid to speak out against the government because of fear of punishment and death by the secret police. Since Iraq is a totalitarian government run by fear the people will only become more untrustworthy and isolated.
Imagine living in a world of complete rejection of liberal ideas and absolute conformity. Citizens of this world do not have the freedom to choose their occupation. In fact, these citizens have no rights. They cannot speak freely, they do not enjoy any personal freedoms or privacy, and the media is aggressively censored. This is the world of George Orwell’s 1984 and Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. The protagonist of Fahrenheit 451 is Guy Montag, and he is a fireman. His job is to destroy books completely by setting fire to them. Winston Smith is the main character in 1984, where he works as a civil servant in the lower class ruling party. Both of these men become entranced with the past and how life was before a totalitarian government. This fascination gives rise to a rebellion inside both men. Both societies that are revealed in these books face loss of freedoms, and are very highly controlled. The loss of personal freedoms allows a totalitarian government to instill loyalty in its citizens by using propaganda to condition the thinking of the citizens, stealing away the privacy of individuals, subjecting them to poverty, and constant fear of punishment as demonstrated by the novels Fahrenheit 451 and 1984.
Many countries have decided against having a totalitarian government system, but there still are countries that continue with running their country with authoritarianism. The Middle East persists on having an authoritarianism style government over having a democracy. Theories that prove to be true to Middle Eastern people of how a totalitarian government is better relate to economics, religion, and international involvement. People living in the Middle East want to avoid having political liberation because that can lead to a consistent and stable democratic government. Another reason keeping them from changing is that since their countries aren’t struggling economically, the citizens don’t see it necessary to elect new leaders. The countries in the Middle East region decide to continue with authoritarianism because the fear and pain is greater than the feeling of freedom.
A characteristic of a person who tends to help facilitate people to achieve a certain task describes leadership. By motivating and directing individuals, a leader tends to have a major affect on a group of individuals. Leaders can be harsh and commanding, but they also can be accepting and encouraging. However, both styles of leadership have a major affect on the group of individuals and the nations they rule either positive or negative. For instance, an authoritarian leadership style is when one person rules an entire nation alone and decides what is good or bad for the country without any input from other executives. Authoritarian rulers tend to be harsh and commanding to the people because they are ruling an entire nation but there is only
Many people argue that a totalitarian government is cruel and very corrupt. Dictators are always criticized because their actions aren’t for the good of his people, but a democracy is no different than a totalitarian rule; the only difference is that people living in a totalitarian government are equal, productive, and stable; which cannot be said for people living in a democracy.
For a historian, the 20th century and all the historic events that it encompasses represents a utopia with endless sources of inspiration for the analysis of political figures, events and their consequences. Political figures such as Benito Mussolini of Italy, Adolf Hitler of Germany, Mao Zedong of China and Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union are all names we are familiar with due to the time period that they influenced; this time period after the trauma and atrocities of World War I and the Great Depression led to completely new forms of government in Europe and beyond. These “manifestations of political evil”, commonly known as totalitarian states, should not be considered as mere extensions of already existing political systems, but rather as completely new forms of government built upon terror and ideological fiction. Therefore, this was also a time in which political philosophers such as Hannah Arendt, the author of the standard work on totalitarianism, “Origins of Totalitarianism”, could thrive. When looking at totalitarianism as a political philosophy, two initial questions have to be dealt with: what is totalitarianism and what kind of effect it has on countries ruled by totalitarian regimes.
Freedom and equality are intertwined with one another. Freedom is defined as the custom of being free, political independence, and the possession of civil rights. When reflecting upon the history of the twentieth century many people all over the world were not afforded the luxury of being born with freedom or born with equal rights. In most cases, those people were often oppressed or subjugated by various forms of systematic state sponsored authoritarianism and terror. In order to receive the freedom necessary to survive and the equality required to live a happy and successful life the oppressed people had to take action. Often times the action took on various forms such as, revolts or nonviolent campaigns. Because the governments reliance on authoritarianism and terror to control their citizens, often times revolts and/or nonviolent campaigns were the consequence. Therefore, any advances towards gaining freedom and equality cannot happen without some form of systematic state-sponsored authoritarianism and terror taking place first. It is no coincidence because the two phenomena are linked.
Throughout history different types of instrumental regimes have been in tact so civilizations remained structured and cohesive. As humanity advanced, governments obligingly followed. Although there have been hiccups from the ancient times to modern day, one type of government, democracy, has proven to be the most effective and adaptive. As quoted by Winston Churchill, democracy is the best form of government that has existed. This is true because the heart of democracy is reliant, dependent, and thrives on the populaces desires; which gives them the ability for maintaining the right to choose, over time it adjusts and fixes itself to engulf the prominent troubling issues, and people have the right of electing the person they deem appropriate and can denounce them once they no longer appease them. In this paper, the benefits of democracy are outlined, compared to autocratic communism, and finally the flaws of democracy are illustrated.
Admittedly, such connection is not absolute. However, the empirical regularity of the emergence of authoritarianism within populist regime suggests that this could be the profound theoretical reason for the failure of populist democracy (Riker,
The next important attribute to consider is the government’s ability to implement policies that they have passed. If these policies are against public opinion they will have a difficult time implementing them since they do not have an authoritarian or absolute rule. The government mus...