Explain The Authoritarian System Of Government

This leadership style is also called authoritarian and, as the name suggests, puts the majority of power

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 major differences between democratic, authoritarian, and anarchic political systems are who holds the power, who has freedom/how much, and how much involvement the government has in the workings of its country. For authoritarian states, the power is held mainly by a single person or an elite group of people, few people have freedom, with what freedom they have being limited, and the government, or rather the leader/leaders, is involved in almost every aspect of the country from controlling the economy to making decisions for the lifestyles of its citizens like deciding how many kids they may have or what hair styles are approved. Everything is at the whim of those in charge and can change at any second. Anarchic is the exact opposite of this. In an anarchic government, everyone has power all the power they can take for themselves, nothing is unpermitted as there are no laws and since a government doesn’t exist, it can’t have any involvement in anything. Finally there is the democratic system which is a happy medium between these two extremes. In a democracy, everyone has some power through the right to vote directly or for elected officials who will run the country (who are limited by a constitution of some kind), everyone has freedom within the country’s generally reasonable laws, and government involvement is limited to making laws and regulations within reason to protect its citizens, economy, etc. For example, you would not see a democratic nation forbidding speaking

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

Freedom of the press is closely related to freedom of speech. During the American Revolution individuals like Thomas Paine wrote pamphlets about the problems that the Americans were having with the British government. These pamphlets were understandably unpopular with the

Authoritarian theory in mass media can be comprehended as media that operate under either publicly or privately owned (Biagi, 2012). The authoritarian theory is origin from Ancient Greece philosophy Plato (407 -327 B.C) with the theory “who thought that the State was safe only in the hands of a few wise men” (Peoi.org, 2015). Then, a brittish academician, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) had argued that the power to maintain order was sovereign and individual objections were to be ignored (Peoi.org, 2015). Another German thinker, Engel further reinforced the theory by stating that freedom came into its supreme right only under Authoritarianism (Peoi.org, 2015). Authoritarian theory concept of the press is developed in Europe after Gutenberg. Presses in Europe were privately owned until the 1850s. However the aristocracy who governed the countries wanted some sort of control on the financial and political power. The aristocracy

Political Scientist Lowell Barrington describes semi-authoritarian regimes as those where elections are held but are restricted, the judiciary is not completely autonomous and the media are only partly free. (Barrington) The Venezuelan government has been, for more than a decade now, a semi-authoritarian regime, where freedoms are undermined, political institutions are corrupted, and the system of checks and balances is broken while maintaining a façade of democracy.

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.

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

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.

Under an authoritarian regime, specifically a dictatorship, the ruler has the political and executive power to persecute an individual or group for political reasons, which demonstrates a form of political oppression.