Essay About Authoritarianism

“...We govern our children without their consent...Would not the people of the Philippines prefer the just, human, civilizing government of this Republic…” (Doc B, Albert J. Beveridge). I disagree with this black and white view of the world. The Filipinos are grown people capable of making the best decision for themselves. Children are not (due to their undeveloped frontal lobes). They do not need America to save them. They wanted freedom enough to attempt war with Spain, a global power, so they have earned that

Those who are in power are not accountable to constituencies and public policy does not derive from social consent. Within sociology and political science, particularly within comparative politics, authoritarianism has been understood as a modern type of political regime. Therefore, the concept focuses on the way of accessing, exercising, and organizing power, on the nature of the belief system, and the role of citizens in the political

With the human civilization is progressing, there are several kinds of political system appeared in the world. It seems that an important reason that results in some countries are democratic or some countries not. Therefore, this essay will discuss 2 countries America and Cuba, which are liberal democracy country and non-democracy (authoritarian regime) country respectively. What are liberal democracies and authoritarian regime? What class of politics system runs in those two countries? How does politics system runs in those two countries and changes them. Following will help to further show what above is. This essay will also compare the some aspects of them, which are economics, party of country, human right.

Pursuit of various visions of social justice probably accounts for most human misery. What's more, the historical pattern that has emerged has been one whereby one form of injustice is replaced by one that is far worse. Russia's 1917 revolution expelling the Czars, and their injustices, ushered in Lenin, Stalin and a succession of brutal dictators who murdered tens of millions in the name of the proletariat revolution. The injustices of Chiang Kai-shek were replaced with those of Mao Tse-tung; Castro's ousting of Batista or Ayatollah Khomeini's toppling of the Shah of Iran produced regimes far more brutal. In Africa, after independence, the injustices of colonial powers

Most people would like to think that they would never do anything to intentionally hurt another human being. However history has shown that human nature does not always prevail with the best outcomes. The following experiments and real life events all reflect that human beings succumb to obedience even when common sense tells them that what they are doing is wrong. Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison experiment, Milgram’s electric shock study, and the scandal surrounding Abu Ghraib are reflections on the outcome of obeying a command regardless of the results and why someone would do so.

In this argument, I believe the failures of the initial Philippine colonial project not only retrogressed the islanders back into their primitive informal aristocracy but actually help unify and modernize a regime that was the complete reversal of American intentions. The result of the type of Filipino government after reconstruction were significantly constrained by Anti-Imperialists tensions from the metropole and continued to reshape itself by many additional constraints from the Filipino legislation. Only about fifty years later of political administration would enable the development of an autonomic government.

To ‘investigate this question we will first discuss, in a theoretical section, the terms “authoritarian personality” and “authoritarianism”, then have a look at the evolution in methods to measure them, with different scales and studies. Secondly, we will discuss the difference between personality and behavior. Then

Leaders of authoritarian systems have an absolute rule without contestation from others and have the power to control all factors that concern their state. This paper will explore the similarities and differences between ruling presidents and ruling parties within the authoritarian system.

Authoritarianism is a regime type and, furthermore, a political vision that seeks to create compliance in authority and establish order and peace by striving for absolute legitimacy. In an authoritarian regime, power relations are vertically-organized, where there is little to no accountability for those in power and where civil and political rights of citizens, if established, are restrictive and violated. Two common misconceptions of authoritarianism are that they are durable and they have always have a paternal figure as leader. To the first point: though an authoritarian regime would be relatively simple to establish, the difficult task of legitimizing and consolidating absolute authority makes authoritarian rule an incredibly arduous endeavour. Authoritarian regimes can easily be snubbed out as quickly as they began to burn, pointing to how the legitimacy of authority is by far the most essential tool to the authoritarian. But who is the authoritarian? Many see authoritarian regimes as patrimonial, meaning that though there still might be complex institutions of bureaucracy, security, and even political parties, all authority comes from the top and the top alone. However, there can also be authoritarian regimes run by an institution, whether through a military junta or hegemonic political party. Authoritarianism can easily derive from civil society instead of through the military, yet the coercive powers of military are essential for consolidating power.

An authoritarian system can be defined as a principle of blind obedience and acceptance to authority, as opposed to individual freedom and belief. Authoritarian rulers often lack constitutional responsibility towards citizens and choose to exercise absolute control without consideration to the existing bodies of law. Authoritarianism is considered a contested term as they are various forms of authoritarian rule, namely ruling parties and ruling presidents. Hence, this essay will discuss, with reference to similarities

Another is that Filipinos have a culture of apathy and tend to use religion incorrectly and passively. People depend on religion and settle for what’s okay. In addition, the initial reaction of Filipinos to change is resistance, and this is why the country does not necessarily progress, or at least, progress at a continuous rate. Then, countries like Spain and Portugal only rode the “economic tiger” after “they realized that the only way to survive was change” (3.Y). Plus, according to another critic, the Philippines already had the experience of being under the parliamentary system during the time of Marcos which only resulted in a People Power Revolution. So why should the country bother going back to that? (4.Y)

Essay question 3: Argue for or against this statement: It is illogical for an authoritarian regime to embrace electoral democracy

Singapore 's former Prime Minster, Lee Kuan Yew once said: "Human beings, regrettable though it may be, are inherently vicious and have to be restrained" (Kwang, Fernandez, & Tan 1). One can infer from Kuan Yew’s statement that he 's subtly saying that individuals shouldn 't be in control of their choices, yet there ought to be somebody to settle on choices for them. An ideology such as this can stem from an authoritarian government. In this day and age, most nations have a tendency to have a democracy. However, it wasn 't generally that way. Throughout history, there were nations under authoritarian rule. In order to fully understand what an authoritarian regime is, one must know the meaning of it. An authoritarian government is "an oppressive regime that rules through strict, intrusive, and violent enforcement of laws. It can “take the form of a dictatorship, but may also manifest itself in totalitarian bureaucracies or oligarchies" (Ritter 576). An authoritarian regime exists when a leader or a small group of leaders owns all property and are the sole decision makers for the entire population. There are only two questions left to be asked. How are authoritarian regimes created and how do they even stay in power? Authoritarian governments ascend to power due to a postwar upheaval and the leader in the charge; they stay in power by employing a resource trap and having a one party system.

In 1972, President Ferdinand E. Marcos (1965-86) declared martial law, citing growing lawlessness and open rebellion by the communist rebels as his justification. Marcos governed from 1973 until mid-1981 in accordance with the transitory provisions of a new constitution that replaced the commonwealth constitution of 1935. He suppressed democratic institutions and restricted civil liberties during the martial law period, ruling largely by decree and popular referenda. The government began a process of political normalization during 1978-81, culminating in the reelection of President Marcos to a 6-year term that would have ended in 1987. The Marcos government's respect for human rights remained low despite the end of martial law on January 17, 1981. His government retained its wide arrest and detention powers. Corruption and favoritism contributed to a serious decline in economic growth and development under Marcos.

Political dynasty is a well known method of politicians in the Philippines wherein the members of the family is made also a member of the government in order for them to not lose power but to gain more power. This act is an unfair and unjust because the government is not a business that a family can run by themselves, but the government is for all and other people should be given chances wherein they can be the one that leads a community.