Authoritarian Government Research Paper

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.

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

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

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

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

Envision a party where there are people drinking and using drugs. The music is loud, and people are getting intense hallucinations. The neighbors disturbed by the ruckus called the authorities reporting substance use by minors. Police soon arrive soon and search the house and look around, but can the police search the house without a warrant? Would this be legal? The Fourth Amendment, with the precedent set by the Fourth Amendment viable circumstances search and seizure is ethical because it protects citizens from an unlawful entry, yet allows law enforcement to collect evidence that can be used in court.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Freedom of speech is more than just words, it is posters, petitions, rallies, protests, and more. This lets opinions be shared and spread to make a difference in the world. The problem is that in schools there is a limit on the amount of freedom of speech students can have. How are students supposed to feel like they have a voice when they are being told that they can only speak of certain topics? By what means could student be educated on their rights like the First Amendment if they cannot have full access to that right at all times? Students are brought together by freedom of speech, schools should not be stopping that. It is essential that freedom of speech in schools should not be limited because it gives students a voice, it educates them on their rights, and it brings students together.

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

Authoritarianism is a form of government in which the leader or leaders have exclusive power concerning matters of the state. Although these