Authoritarian Rule Can Be Legitimate

Democracy and the challenges it is facing has been the main topic in the field of international politics since some Authoritarian regimes have raised again as a great power after a long time of absence. In this essay, we will look at some of the challenges facing the international democracy based on the work of Azar Gat “ The Return Of Authoritarian Great Powers”. The article is presenting the author view on the rise of authoritarian regimes as the main challenge of liberal democracy. The main part of my essay will be an illustration and reflection on a number of arguments that have been brought by the author. Additionally and before concluding my piece I will establish my own argument as a critical response to the article or more specifically to the Economic efficiency argument brought by Azar Gat.

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.

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

One ruler or a small group of leaders have the real power in authoritarian political systems. Authoritarian governments may hold elections and they may have contact with their citizens, but citizens do not have any voice in how they are ruled.

In 20th century the global community witnessed a tremendous amount of chaos. World Wars, and ideologically driven proxy wars brought destruction, and decline to many great countries. One would think that many people have died in these wars, but it is shocking to note that four times as many people have died at the hands of their government than in these wars. Institutions like the government are created to represent the people, to serve, and benefit their welfare. A type of government that does not follow this norm are often oppressive authoritarian regimes. These regimes can range from a one-party rule where a political party or group governs, to a one-man rule. Whichever it may be, authoritarian regimes tend to use similar tactics that

Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way fashionably unveil the major features of this new political regime. As clearly explained by the authors, Competitive Authoritarianism is a hybrid regime combining elements of Liberal Democracy and Authoritarian rule, and, for this reason, many political philosophers like Fukuyama look upon it as a “transitional diminished democracy” (Levitsky). However, political philosophers like Gat and Levitsky, supported by other scholars including Roger Owen, argue that Competitive Authoritarian regimes are promptly consolidating their political power in those country-areas where Liberal Democracy is weakening like in Ukraine and Turkey, or it failed in some African countries and the Middle East. In sight of this speculative research, Competitive Authoritarianism is the current challenge to Liberal Democracy, therefore it minimizes the chance of being considered a transitional political regime.

Totalitarianism is also sometimes referred to as authoritarianism. In this type of governing the leaders are in total control. Sometimes there is one supreme leader and other times there are a group of leaders. Individual freedom is non-existent as each citizen is forced to follow the policy of the leaders that are not held to a standard of a constitution (Anmal, 2011). The two most common types of totalitarianism include Theocratic and Secular rule.

It’s clear those authoritarian nations are less likely to move up economically from lower tier to upper world power. History shows that during the cold war many lower tier country in African, Asian, and Latin American become authoritarian but little to no change happen most of the time condition become worse. They’re other authoritarian government beside the communist one that was wide spared during the cold war. These other types are, military dictatorships, theocracies, and absolute monarchs. The reasons why these types of government do not work due to how weak the nations are outside the capitol. This authoritarian style of government cares little for the common man and focus more on their military needs. This type of government also damages

Throughout the world and recorded history, it can be witnessed that there has always been structured civilization with accumulated power found in the hands of few sovereigns. In Asia, distinguished styles of governing have arisen. This essay will examine three distinctive cases of authoritarian leaders. Each case study will include a breakdown of how each authoritarian ruler perpetuated their rule with distinctive and exceptional strategies. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea regime will be the case example of a communist state, Pakistan regime will serve as an example of a military state, and lastly India will be embodying a restrictive democracy.

Authoritarian leadership, also known as autocratic leadership. This leadership is over all control over all decisions with little to no input from the leaders group members. Authoritarians will make choices based upon their own judgements and ideas not allowing for any advice from any other persons. Benefits from this leadership are decisions being made quickly with out waiting the input of others. Projects or offices that require a strong leader would be looking for and authoritarian leadership style. Disadvantages to this style of leadership is that people in this position can be referred to as bossy , controlling and dictatorial (Cherry, 2015). These can lead to resentment from coworkers and group members.

In this TMA I will examine and assess how political order is made mainly through the state. In order to create, maintain and repair political order, the state needs authority from its citizens to do so and this authority needs to be legitimate. ‘Legitimacy refers to a belief in the states rightness, its right to rule or the idea that its authority is proper.’ I will then explain how today, legitimacy is closely linked to democracy and it is through free and fair elections that the state receives legitimacy. The degree to which individuals legitimise the state is varied and individuals or groups of people can also engage critically with the state.

The authoritarian government is very different from the democracy government in many ways. There are ways like how they come into power and how they run their country and things like that. The authoritarian government doesn’t have the freedom like we have a democracy government.

Autocratic leadership somewhat resembles a dictatorship or an authoritarian structure. The leader has a high level of control making decisions without the input of others. This type of leadership is not very effective in most situations, what does work well during emergencies.

An authoritarian government is any ruling political unit in which the person or group in power tells everyone else what to do, more or less without recourse. Monarchies without parliament and in which the monarch actually rules, as well as military governments and dictatorships of the left and the right can all be correctly identified as authoritarian. Most workplaces are authoritarian, too; the boss tells you what to do, or else. Similarly, most families have an authoritarian streak, as do schools. The basic idea is that what is done is not put to a vote: someone in authority commands, others obey. Authoritarian governments, as you might imagine, can cover a very wide range of power regimes.