What Is The Role Of Authoritarian Democracy In Post-Conflict Government?

In the article “Democracy in Decline: How Washington Can Reverse the Tide,” the author, Larry Diamond, details the declination of democracy across the world as a global issue. Diamond explains that, following the Cold War, democracy became vibrant across the world. However, it slowly began to decline, which was seen in Kenya, Russia, Thailand, and Turkey. Additionally, other non-democratic states, particularly authoritarian regimes, are drifting further away from democracy, becoming less responsive to their people. Diamond explains that these authoritarian states are becoming less open because they are increasing their censorships and are arresting those who resist. Furthermore, these governments are also restricting organizations from outside communications and operations. Nearly a hundred laws have been enacted in the past four years restricting freedom of assembly in governments across the world.

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.

In the midst of the prevalence of democratic transitions, a number of developing countries are seeking to achieve the successful consolidation of civil order in modern days. Among those participants, Mexico and Nigeria has been spotlighted for the completely contrastive endings at the end of their long-adventures towards democratization since their independence; Mexico, from its independence, has maintained the political stability despite the authoritarian single-party regime and even accomplished the solid democratization at the time of the 2000 election whereas Nigerian regime has been deteriorated by a series of military cues d’états and

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

Nations all around the world are still healing from the wounds of twentieth century totalitarianism, yet more seems to be on the horizon. In his 1984 magnum opus, George Orwell warns future generations of the many dangers of allowing government, or the powerful few, from being the chiefs of law expression and history using the eerie, all-powerful dystopian Party. Unfortunately, it is a warning few have truly heeded in the past half century. Resulting from a lack of written laws, the Party may prosecute its citizens relentlessly and without reason. Moreover, the Party maintains an iron grip on all published information, ensuring a death hold on all free expression and education. Yet, above all, the Party controls history; it rewrites, revises and republishes the past to secure their totalitarian future. In spite of these warnings, the decades following the publication of this novel saw nations continue on the

Hannah Arendt, the author of The Origins of Totalitarianism, talks about totalitarianism and what it looked like. She describes how the Nazi’s ran their government by dehumanizing an individual, group and how they took control over the masses in Germany. In this piece of work, the final chapter “Total Domination”, also contributes to what it means to be under the rule of a totalitarian government. She goes on about how total domination can be achieved if “every person can be reduced to a never-changing identity of reactions” (Hannah Arendt’s “Total Domination”). Recently, eastern countries have had revolutions because of totalitarian style governments doing whatever they please. Two recent revolutions from Syria and Libya have shown that these types of governments will not be tolerated. Even Egypt has had its fair share of trouble as well. Hannah Arendt would have applauded the recent revolutions in Syria and Libya because in Libya it began when a human rights lawyer was arrested, both were done to fight for political change, and in Syria it was also done for a better economy. Arendt’s idea of total domination cannot be seen in Hosni Mubarak’s rule over Egypt.

To begin, the United States should not play a role in enforcing democracy in other countries. Our country currently has a dysfunctional government, and should be more concerned with improving ideals on the home front before imposing said ideals on other nations. In the United States, we suffer from an incredibly large amount of debt on the national level that we have no way of paying off, poverty is abundant, and there are numerous examples of corruption in even our national government. Meanwhile, we pour endless resources, money, and American lives, into countries where there has been conflict for hundreds of years, and the people there neither want nor need our so-called assistance. Our interest should not be in inflicting American ideals

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

Americans will argue that the United States is undeniably the greatest country in the world. This strong sense of nationalism is based off the rights Americans are guaranteed, such as freedom and due process. Numerous countries that reside under authoritarian and totalitarian rule do not receive these basic rights that some citizens of the United States take for granted. An authoritarian state can be simply defined as “a political system where legitimate authority rests with a single person or with a small group, or in other words, an oligarchy.” Although authoritarian states have been the most frequent type of government over time and are the main alternative to democracies as a form of government, authoritarianism receives much criticism

To determine whether or not authoritarian rule can be legitimate, we must first start at the very beginning. By this I mean we have to be specific about what we are asking. Let us first define legitimacy. When attempting to define legitimacy, we already run into problems. Is legitimacy the control and use of force over a given territory? Or is it international recognition by the governments and diplomats of the international community? What about the people over which the authoritarians rule? Do they determine the degree of legitimacy? For the purposes of this paper, I will discuss the legitimacy of authoritarian regimes in terms of its acceptance by the international community, as well as the role of the ruled people in determining legitimacy.

The use of violence to repress and monitor was a common theme used by dictators to ‘control’ their peoples. This was uncommon in democracies, for example the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill did not have his own personal guard, answerable only to himself; it was Churchill who was scrutinized by the people, the reverse of the situation pertaining in both Germany and the Soviet Union. Totalitarianism endangers the stability of a nation as there will be “growing internal unrest due to the excesses of terrorism, the denial of rights and the inability of large segments of the population to participate in public affairs ”. It was these basic democratic principles which were absent throughout the totalitarian regimes of the 20th Century; as a single man’s ideology was allowed to develop unrestricted, with little input from either a strong government or the general public.

Authoritarian regimes remain in power using many different methods including public manipulation, strategic stacking and reward to their officials and institutions, and violent response to opposition. These examples allow for corruption that Pei (2009) describes as a, “vital governing tool for authoritarian regimes.” Bueno de Mesquita and Smith (2011) note that:

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

Schedler argues that authoritarian regimes – particularly since the end of the Cold War era have been replaced by electoral authoritarian regimes that combine the façade of electoral democracy with systemic abuse of democratic procedures. They have reproduced institutional arrangements present in the democratic system, such as elections, the legislative and judicial powers, and independent local governments. However, these institution creations are never meant to become autonomous, rather manipulative in order to be instruments of pretentious delegation of power from the executive.

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.