Authoritarianism
This article applies to political ideologies. For information on authoritarianism in psychology see Authoritarian Personality.
Authoritarianism describes a
form of government characterized by strict
obedience to the
authority of the
state, which often maintains and enforces
social control through the use of
oppressive measures. The term may also be used to describe the personality or management style of an individual or
organization which seeks to
dominate those within its
sphere of influence and has little regard for building
consensus.
In an authoritarian state, citizens are subject to state authority in many aspects of their lives, including many that other
political philosophies would see as matters of personal choice. There are various degrees of authoritarianism; even very democratic and liberal states will show authoritarianism to some extent, for example in areas of national security.
Authoritarianism often arises from the governing bodies' presumption that they know what is right or wrong for the country and from intolerance of dissent. The government then enforces what it thinks is right, often with use of considerable force and sometimes in blatant violation of
human rights. Dissenting voices are ignored, or, more strikingly, are considered to be plotting against the best interests of the country. Such was, for instance, the case during the
Reign of Terror in
France or in
Spain under
Francisco Franco.
However, there can exist authoritarianism without any defining ideology or ideal of common good. Such is the case in
dictatorships where the dictator maintains power more for the privileges associated with power than in the belief that he is conducting the right policies.
According to proponents of the theory of
totalitarianism, authoritarianism is distinguished from
totalitarianism both in degree and scope, in that authoritarian administration or governance are less intrusive and, in the case of groups, not necessarily backed by the use of force. According to such concepts, authoritarian regimes do not attempt to control the economy nor the private lives of their subjects.
Typically, the
government of an authoritarian regime is ruled by an elite group that uses repressive means to stay in power. Unlike
totalitarian regimes, there is no alleged desire or ideological justification for the state to control all aspects of a person's life, and the state will generally ignore the actions of an individual unless it is perceived to be a direct challenge to the state. Totalitarian governments tend to be
revolutionary, intent on changing the basic structure of society, while authoritarian ones tend to be
conservative. Both can be either
left-wing or
right-wing.
Those who adhered to such a conception of the theory of totalitariansm used such a distinction as an important ideological rationale for US foreign policy during the Cold War. Known as the
Kirkpatrick Doctrine, employed by
Ronald Reagan, it asserted that the United States could work with authoritarian nations with abysmal
human rights records on the grounds they were less dangerous than totalitarian nations. The theory of totalitarianism is disputed as a useful and accurate theoretical model by many academics within the political sciences.
There exists a gradation in authoritarianism, as well as a variety of possible authoritarian behaviors. Authoritarianism may exist under different regimes:
*
Absolute monarchies are almost always authoritarian. For instance, criticizing the royal government of
France under the
ancien régime could get writers etc. imprisoned by executive order (known as a
lettre de cachet).
*
Dictatorships are always authoritarian.
*
Democracies rarely exhibit much authoritarian behavior except in transition to or from authoritarian states. Many (if not most) citizens of authoritarian states do not perceive their state as authoritarian until late in its development. This makes it difficult to label modern states as 'democratic' or 'authoritarian'. People make this difficulty worse when they use these terms without clear definitions.
*
Despoties are always authoritarian.
*
Militarchies, countries run by soldiers, are almost always authoritarian. Note that militarchy does not necessarily mean a
dictatorship or a
junta, but a generally thoroughly
militarized state. A classical example of militarchy would be Ancient
Sparta or the
Mamluk Egypt.
*
Theocracies are always authoritarian.
As an example of this difficulty, modern democracies once enforced laws that are now widely considered abusive and authoritarian: for instance, countries such as the
United States and the
United Kingdom, until recently enforced
sodomy laws imposing the moral and religious values of the majority over matters of private life.
Authoritarian regimes typically grant wide powers to law enforcement agencies; in the extreme this leads to a
police state. Authoritarian regimes may or may not have a
rule of law. In the former case laws are enacted and though they may seem intrusive, unjust or excessive, they are applied to common people. In the latter case laws do not exist or are routinely ignored — government actions follow the judgments or whims of officials.
One argument for authoritarianism, popular among political elites in East and Southeast
Asia, is that countries with authoritarian regimes are more likely to be economically successful than
democratic countries. Examples given to support this argument are
South Korea,
Singapore,
Malaysia, and
Taiwan, which were authoritarian during their period of growth. This notion of developmental authoritarianism is a central justification used by the
Communist Party of China to justify its authoritarian rule of the
People's Republic of China. (The notion that authoritarian government is ultimately superior to democracy was also part of the idea of
Asian values, although it diminished somewhat after the
Asian financial crisis in
1998.)
One counter-argument is that there are many instances of authoritarian nations that have not encountered rapid growth, for example the
Philippines,
Vietnam, and
Indonesia. In postwar
Europe,
Spain under
Francisco Franco's authoritarian regime was considerably less economically developed than neighbouring countries such as
France, even though France's infrastructure was devastated by
World War II and Spain's was not.
Lee Kuan Yew,
Singapore's first
Prime Minister, purportedly justified Singapore's strict social conduct laws as "a way to force civility onto a third-world country," which he claimed Singapore was at the time of its separation from
Malaysia.
*
United States*
Capitalism*
Statism*
Corporatism*
Anti-authoritarianism*
Authoritarian personality*
Right Wing Authoritarianism*
- UN University Annual "State of the Future" Report: including discussion on genuine democracy can emerge from former states of authoritarian regimes
