Authoritarian Government Research Paper

Last but not least the government of the Massachusetts Bay Colony was partly authoritarian for many reasons. The colony favored a strict set of rules and taxes and stuck to them. This shows the authoritarian government. The Governor set the taxes and laws based on the will of the church and what was the "right thing to do." They even had strict rules about kissing in public, and various other "inappropriate things" considered to be wrong by the church. Some states were nicknamed after the color of the paper that the laws were printed on. The irony of this is that the people wanted to live an easier life with more freedom from the government and religion, but then proceeded to promote and carry out repressive laws such as kissing in public.

Autocratic leadership, also known as authoritarian leadership is a leadership style characterized by individual control over all decisions and little input from group members. Autocratic leaders typically make choices based on their own ideas and judgments and rarely accept advice from followers. Autocratic leadership involves absolute, authoritarian control over a group. It can also be derived

Authoritarian leadership style is where a leader has complete control and power over their team. They demonstrate their 'power' and 'control' by dictating policies and procedures, deciding what goals need to be achieved, and directs all activities to be done by the team. An authoritarian is usually most successful when things are going well or when in a crisis and decisions need to be made quickly.

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

The current system in the UK is a liberal democracy. Authoritarianism is the traditional system of most societies and still exists in many today. Authoritarian states are non-democratic; they either have a single ruler or a single political party in power. They work on a system of power ’from above’; public opinion is not taken into consideration. Individual liberty is considered to be less important than the authority of the ruler.

In an authoritarian government, there is one leader who makes all of the decisions. They could also have a group of leaders like in our democracy. The only thing is, the people don’t get a say in who is leading them. Instead of holding an election, like we do, the authoritarian government just picks whoever they think fits best. This is a problem because they are taking away the people’s

Children across the country can be heard pledging allegiance “to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands;” however, research shows we no longer have a democratic republic in the United States. When the desires of the majority are systematically subverted to the desires a small and powerful minority, as is often in the case in the US, that system is an oligarchy. The democratic republic envisioned by the founding fathers has been replaced by an oligarchy to which they would have objected. With no express discussion of corporations in the constitution, the responsibility of defining the role and privileges of corporations in the US has been left largely to the United States Supreme Court.

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

During the twentieth century, many people were disoriented and devastated as a result of World War I and the Great Depression. No one had ever dealt with this level of death, carnage, and economic decline before. People were disillusioned by their government and felt that something new would be required to hold themselves together. Ironically enough, people were starving for direction and a sense of order, even though they questioned their government. This need was an opportunity for power-hungry leaders such as tyrants – “one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power” (“Tyrant”) – to step up to the plate and take advantage of the situation. Totalitarian governments gave people hope as they promoted signs of security as well as a strong, positive outlook on the future of their

No, I do not think that the United States could become a fascist nation. I say this because this country would never allow it; in order for a nation to become fascist it requires certain conditions that America would never comply with. Fascist nations are often dominated by the control of men, and there are too many women’s rights activists in the U.S. to allow such a thing. Also, a fascist nation severely limits educational, art, and press expression. Americans have a heavy belief on high educational standards as well as the freedom of expression in the arts, and it is unconstitutional to constrict the voicing of the press. Fascist governments are led by a dictator, and the checks and balance system was put in place to prevent any one section

One of the forms of government is autocracy. An autocracy is a government in which one person has absolute power. There are two main forms of an autocracy; a monarchy and a dictatorship. A monarchy is when a king or queen rules a country, and the role of king/queen is usually passed along by blood or marriage. A dictatorship is where one leader has absolute power over their people in every aspect. An example of an autocracy would be in North Korea, where the country is ruled by the dictator Kim Jong Un.

History has known far more authoritarian regimes than any other form of government. Authoritarianism is a form of non-democratic rule defined by state power being centralized in a single person or a small group of people. Unlike democracies, these individuals in power are not dependent on the people for power. Thus, under authoritarianism, state leaders have little accountability to the public and there is little individual freedom. Additionally, authoritarian regimes are not bound by a constitution that might limit their power. Such democratic liberties such as the right to assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are highly controlled or non-existent. State policies are designed to maintain the power status quo in favor of

If it were not for the crucial mistakes of Italy, Germany, and Spain’s governments to address interwar problems, then right-wing authoritarian regimes may never have formed. Seeing as to how countries across the world were left crippled after world war one, successful control of a nation was hard to obtain. In response, countries began strictly monitoring their economies, which the middle class was against. Regarding the issue of the agreement between socialist and catholic parties, Italy failed to find a solution. Germany unsuccessfully controlled socialist and communist influences, which inspired right-wing groups. Spain was powerless as its weak monarchy was taken over by coalitions of the nobility. As a culmination of these countries inabilities to govern, right-wing authoritarian regimes were formed amongst many European countries.

Fascism in Europe was self-assured of many beliefs present throughout the twenty century which all established their own changes from each other. Fascism is the genuine dictatorship of confrontation protagonists. During the inter-war period a quantity of Marxist concepts of fascism were technologically advanced which recognized the working class, or minor position, as the main element in its temperament. More than a few years earlier Marx’s own investigation of the minor position had featured its unique viewpoint, but in the greatest progressive cultures the condition of the minor circle influences him in the direction of both socialism and capitalism. He is amazed by the development of control of the large league on the one side, yet he shares in the grief of the societies on the other. During the crunch years of the inter-war period ordinary events were no longer clever of suppling radical explanations for these individuals. Fascism presented them a demanding substitute which gets rid of public defeats onto the signs of domestic failure and restitution, proposing people who felt immobilized a common sense of power through revolutionary nationalism and strength (Wolfreys, 2006).Fascism is a way of shaping a culture where a administration run by a ruler controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the administration, it is also very severe governor

In these systems, the regimes possess some of these characteristics but have found ways to manipulate the system to consolidate their power. “Rather than openly violating democratic rules (for example, by banning or repressing the opposition and the media), incumbents are more likely to use bribery, co-optation, and more subtle forms of persecution, such as the use of tax authorities, compliant judiciaries, and other state agencies to ‘legally’ harass, persecute, or extort cooperative behavior from critics” . While it is apparent that these regimes are not fully democratic, it would be unfair to label them as fully authoritarian either. Unlike traditional totalitarian governments, the persistence of true democratic institutions in competitive authoritarian regimes allows the opposition to contest, weaken and occasionally even defeat autocratic incumbents. While these situations are generally uncommon, these situations are possible in competitive authoritarianism due to four independent means, the electoral arena, the legislature, the judiciary and the media. These four branches are virtually independent of the executive control however, unlike in democracies, the competitive authoritarian regimes use its power to undermine their independence. “In regards to the electoral arena, large-scale abuses of state power, biased media coverage, harassment of opposition candidates and activists are widespread, legislatures tend to be relatively weak, the