Authoritarianism

Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by strong central power and limited political freedoms.[1] Political scientists have created many typologies describing variations of authoritarian forms of government.[1] Authoritarian regimes may be either autocratic or oligarchic in nature and may be based upon the rule of a party or the military.[2][3]

This article is about authoritarianism in political science and organizational studies. For authoritarianism in psychology, see Authoritarian personality. For a form of government where power is held by a single individual, see Autocracy.

In an influential 1964 work,[4] the political scientist Juan Linz defined authoritarianism as possessing four qualities:

1. Limited political pluralism, realized with constraints on the legislature, political parties and interest groups.
2. Political legitimacy based upon appeals to emotion and identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems, such as underdevelopment or insurgency".
3. Minimal political mobilization and suppression of anti-regime activities.
4. Ill-defined executive powers, often vague and shifting, which extends the power of the executive.[5][6]

Minimally defined, an authoritarian government lacks free and competitive direct elections to legislatures, free and competitive direct or indirect elections for executives, or both.[7] Broadly defined, authoritarian states include countries that lack the civil liberties such as freedom of religion, or countries in which the government and the opposition do not alternate in power at least once following free elections.[8] Authoritarian states might contain nominally democratic institutions such as political parties, legislatures and elections which are managed to entrench authoritarian rule and can feature fraudulent, non-competitive elections.[9] Since 1946, the share of authoritarian states in the international political system increased until the mid-1970s, but declined from then until the year 2000.[10]

Characteristics

In general

Authoritarianism is characterized by highly concentrated and centralized power maintained by political repression and the exclusion of potential challengers. It uses political parties and mass organizations to mobilize people around the goals of the regime.[11] Adam Przeworski has theorized that "authoritarian equilibrium rests mainly on lies, fear and economic prosperity".[12]

Authoritarianism also tends to embrace the informal and unregulated exercise of political power, a leadership that is "self-appointed and even if elected cannot be displaced by citizens' free choice among competitors", the arbitrary deprivation of civil liberties and little tolerance for meaningful opposition.[11] A range of social controls also attempt to stifle civil society while political stability is maintained by control over and support of the armed forces, a bureaucracy staffed by the regime and creation of allegiance through various means of socialization and indoctrination.[11]

Authoritarianism is marked by "indefinite political tenure" of the ruler or ruling party (often in a one-party state) or other authority.[11] The transition from an authoritarian system to a more democratic form of government is referred to as democratization.[11]

Systemic weakness and resilience

Andrew J. Nathan notes that "regime theory holds that authoritarian systems are inherently fragile because of weak legitimacy, overreliance on coercion, over-centralization of decision making, and the predominance of personal power over institutional norms. [...] Few authoritarian regimes—be they communist, fascist, corporatist, or personalist—have managed to conduct orderly, peaceful, timely, and stable successions".[13]

Political scientist Theodore M. Vestal writes that authoritarian political systems may be weakened through inadequate responsiveness to either popular or elite demands and that the authoritarian tendency to respond to challenges by exerting tighter control, instead of by adapting, may compromise the legitimacy of an authoritarian state and lead to its collapse.[11]

One exception to this general trend is the endurance of the authoritarian rule of the Chinese Communist Party which has been unusually resilient among authoritarian regimes. Nathan posits that this can be attributed to four factors such as (1) "the increasingly norm-bound nature of its succession politics"; (2) "the increase in meritocratic as opposed to factional considerations in the promotion of political elites"; (3) "the differentiation and functional specialization of institutions within the regime"; and (4) "the establishment of institutions for political participation and appeal that strengthen the CCP's legitimacy among the public at large".[13]

Institutions

Within authoritarian systems, there may be nominally democratic institutions such as political parties, legislatures[14] and elections, but they are managed in a way so as to entrench authoritarian regimes.[15][9] Within democracies, parties serve to coordinate the pursuit of interests for like-minded citizens, whereas in authoritarian systems, they are a way for authoritarian leaders to find capable elites for the regime.[9] In a democracy, a legislature is intended to represent the diversity of interests among citizens, whereas authoritarians use legislatures to signal their own restraint towards other elites as well as to monitor other elites who pose a challenge to the regime.[9]

Fraudulent elections may serve the role of signaling the strength of the regime (to deter elites from challenging the regime), as well as force other elites to demonstrate their loyalty to the regime, whereas in democracies, free and fair elections are used to select representatives who represent the will of the citizens.[9][15] Elections may also motivate authoritarian party members to strengthen patron–client and information-gathering networks, which strengthens the authoritarian regime.[15] Elections may also motivate members of the ruling class to engage in public goods provision.[16]

According to one study, "most dictatorships led by parties have regular popular elections". Prior to the 1990s, most of these elections had no alternative parties or candidates for voters to vote on. Since the end of the Cold War, about two-thirds of elections in authoritarian systems allow for some opposition, but the elections are structured in a way to heavily favor the incumbent authoritarian regime.[15]

Hindrances to free and fair elections in authoritarian systems may include:[15]

• Control of the media by the authoritarian incumbents.
• Interference with opposition campaigning.
• Electoral fraud.
• Violence against opposition.
• Large-scale spending by the state in favor of the incumbents.
• Permitting of some parties, but not others.
• Prohibitions on opposition parties, but not independent candidates.
• Allowing competition between candidates within the incumbent party, but not those who are not in the incumbent party.

Constitutions in authoritarian regimes

Authoritarian regimes often adopt "the institutional trappings" of democracies such as constitutions.[17] Constitutions in authoritarian states may serve a variety of roles, including "operating manual" (describing how the government is to function); "billboard" (signal of regime's intent), "blueprint" (outline of future regime plans), and "window dressing" (material designed to obfuscate, such as provisions setting forth freedoms that are not honored in practice).[18] Authoritarian constitutions may help legitimize, strengthen, and consolidate regimes.[19] An authoritarian constitution "that successfully coordinates government action and defines popular expectations can also help consolidate the regime's grip on power by inhibiting re coordination on a different set of arrangements".[20] Unlike democratic constitutions, authoritarian constitutions do not set direct limits on executive authority; however, in some cases such documents may function as ways for elites to protect their own property rights or constrain autocrats' behavior.[21]

The concept of "authoritarian constitutionalism" has been developed by legal scholar Mark Tushnet.[22] Tushnet distinguishes authoritarian constitutionalist regimes from "liberal constitutionalist" regimes ("the sort familiar in the modern West, with core commitments to human rights and self-governance implemented by means of varying institutional devices") and from purely authoritarian regimes (which reject the idea of human rights or constraints on leaders' power).[22] He describes authoritarian constitutionalist regimes as (1) authoritarian dominant-party states that (2) impose sanctions (such as libel judgments) against, but do not arbitrarily arrest, political dissidents; (3) permits "reasonably open discussion and criticism of its policies"; (4) hold "reasonably free and fair elections", without systemic intimidation, but "with close attention to such matters as the drawing of election districts and the creation of party lists to ensure as best it can that it will prevail—and by a substantial margin"; (5) reflect at least occasional responsiveness to public opinion; and (6) create "mechanisms to ensure that the amount of dissent does not exceed the level it regards as desirable".[22] Tushnet cites Singapore as an example of an authoritarian constitutionalist state, and connects the concept to that of hybrid regimes.[22]

Violence

Yale University political scientist Milan Svolik argues that violence is a common characteristic of authoritarian systems. Violence tends to be common in authoritarian states because of a lack of independent third parties empowered to settle disputes between the dictator, regime allies, regime soldiers and the masses.[23]

Authoritarians may resort to measures referred to as "coup-proofing", i.e. structures that make it hard for any small group to seize power. These coup-proofing strategies may include the strategic placing of family, ethnic, and religious groups in the military; creation of an armed force parallel to the regular military; and development of multiple internal security agencies with overlapping jurisdiction that constantly monitor one another.[24] Research shows that some coup-proofing strategies reduce the risk of coups occurring.[25][26] However, coup-proofing reduces military effectiveness,[27][28][29] and limits the rents that an incumbent can extract.[30] A 2016 study shows that the implementation of succession rules reduce the occurrence of coup attempts.[31] Succession rules are believed to hamper coordination efforts among coup plotters by assuaging elites who have more to gain by patience than by plotting.[31] According to political scientists Curtis Bell and Jonathan Powell, coup attempts in neighbouring countries lead to greater coup-proofing and coup-related repression in a region.[32] A 2017 study finds that countries' coup-proofing strategies are heavily influenced by other countries with similar histories.[33] A 2018 study in the Journal of Peace Research found that leaders who survive coup attempts and respond by purging known and potential rivals are likely to have longer tenures as leaders.[34] A 2019 study in Conflict Management and Peace Science found that personalist dictatorships are more likely to take coup-proofing measures than other authoritarian regimes; the authors argue that this is because "personalists are characterized by weak institutions and narrow support bases, a lack of unifying ideologies and informal links to the ruler".[35]

According to a 2019 study, personalist dictatorships are more repressive than other forms of dictatorship.[36]

Manipulation of information

According to a 2019 study by Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman, authoritarian regimes have over time become less reliant on violence and mass repression to maintain control. The study shows instead that authoritarians have increasingly resorted to manipulation of information as a means of control. Authoritarians increasingly seek to create an appearance of good performance, conceal state repression, and imitate democracy.[37]

Interactions with other elites and the masses

The foundations of stable authoritarian rule are that the authoritarian prevents contestation from the masses and other elites. The authoritarian regime may use co-optation or repression (or carrots and sticks) to prevent revolts.[23][38]

Economy

Scholars such as Seymour Lipset,[39] Carles Boix, Susan Stokes,[40] Dietrich Rueschemeyer, Evelyne Stephens and John Stephens[41] argue that economic development increases the likelihood of democratization. Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi argue that while economic development makes democracies less likely to turn authoritarian, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that development causes democratization (turning an authoritarian state into a democracy).[42]

Eva Bellin argues that under certain circumstances the bourgeoise and labor are more likely to favor democratization, but less so under other circumstances.[43] Economic development can boost public support for authoritarian regimes in the short-to-medium term.[44]

Typologies

Several subtypes of authoritarian regimes have been identified by Linz and others.[45] Linz identified the two most basic subtypes as traditional authoritarian regimes and bureaucratic-military authoritarian regimes:

• Traditional authoritarian regimes are those "in which the ruling authority (generally a single person)" is maintained in power "through a combination of appeals to traditional legitimacy, patron-client ties and repression, which is carried out by an apparatus bound to the ruling authority through personal loyalties". An example is Ethiopia under Haile Selassie I.[45]
• Bureaucratic-military authoritarian regimes are those "governed by a coalition of military officers and technocrats who act pragmatically (rather than ideologically) within the limits of their bureaucratic mentality".[45] Mark J. Gasiorowski suggests that it is best to distinguish "simple military authoritarian regimes" from "bureaucratic authoritarian regimes" in which "a powerful group of technocrats uses the state apparatus to try to rationalize and develop the economy" such as South Korea under Park Chung-hee.[45]

Subtypes of authoritarian regime identified by Linz are corporatist or organic-statistic, racial and ethnic "democracy" and post-totalitarian.[45]

• Corporatist authoritarian regimes "are those in which corporatism institutions are used extensively by the state to coopt and demobilize powerful interest groups". This type has been studied most extensively in Latin America.[45]
• Racial and ethnic "democracies" are those in which "certain racial or ethnic groups enjoy full democratic rights while others are largely or entirely denied those rights", such as in South Africa under apartheid.[45]
• Post-totalitarian authoritarian regimes are those in which totalitarian institutions (such as the party, secret police and state-controlled mass media[46]) remain, but where "ideological orthodoxy has declined in favor of routinization, repression has declined, the state's top leadership is less personalized and more secure, and the level of mass mobilization has declined substantially".[45] Examples include the Russian Federation and Soviet Eastern Bloc states in the mid-1980s.[45] The post-Mao Zedong People's Republic of China was viewed as post-totalitarian in the 1990s and early 2000s, with a limited degree of increase in pluralism and civil society.[47][48] however, in the 2010s, particularly after Xi Jinping succeeded as General Secretary of the Communist Party of China and rose to power in 2012, Chinese state repression sharply increased, aided by digital control and mass surveillance.[49][50][51]

Authoritarian regimes are also sometimes subcategorized by whether they are personalistic or populist.[45] Personalistic authoritarian regimes are characterized by arbitrary rule and authority exercised "mainly through patronage networks and coercion rather than through institutions and formal rules".[45] Personalistic authoritarian regimes have been seen in post-colonial Africa. By contrast, populist authoritarian regimes "are mobilizational regimes in which a strong, charismatic, manipulative leader rules through a coalition involving key lower-class groups".[45] Examples include Argentina under Jua Perón,[45] Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser[45] and Venezuela under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro.[52][53]

A typology of authoritarian regimes by political scientists Brian Lai and Dan Slater includes four categories: machine (oligarchic party dictatorships); bossism (autocratic party dictatorships); juntas (oligarchic military dictatorships); and strongman (autocratic military dictatorships).[3] Lai and Slater argue that single‐party regimes are better than military regimes at developing institutions (e.g. mass mobilization, patronage networks ad coordination of elites) that are effective at continuing the regime's incumbency and diminishing domestic challengers; Lai and Slater also argue that military regimes more often initiate military conflicts or undertake other "desperate measures" to maintain control as compared to single‐party regimes.[3][2]

John Duckitt suggests a link between authoritarianism and collectivism, asserting that both stand in opposition to individualism.[54] Duckitt writes that both authoritarianism and collectivism submerge individual rights and goals to group goals, expectations and conformities.[55]

Authoritarianism and totalitarianism

Linz distinguished new forms of authoritarianism from personalistic dictatorships and totalitarian states, taking Francoist Spain as an example. Unlike personalistic dictatorships, new forms of authoritarianism have institutionalized representation of a variety of actors (in Spain's case, including the military, the Catholic Church, Falange, monarchists, technocrats and others). Unlike totalitarian states, the regime relies on passive mass acceptance rather than popular support.[56] Totalitarianism is an extreme version of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism primarily differs from totalitarianism in that social and economic institutions exist that are not under governmental control. Building on the work of Yale political scientist Juan Linz, Paul C. Sondrol of the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs has examined the characteristics of authoritarian and totalitarian dictators and organized them in a chart:[57]

	Totalitarianism	Authoritarianism
Charisma	High	Low
Role conception	Leader as function	Leader as individual
Ends of power	Public	Private
Corruption	Low	High
Official ideology	Yes	No
Limited pluralism	No	Yes
Legitimacy	Yes	No

Sondrol argues that while both authoritarianism and totalitarianism are forms of autocracy, they differ in "key dichotomies":

(1) Unlike their bland and generally unpopular authoritarian brethren, totalitarian dictators develop a charismatic "mystique" and a mass-based, pseudo-democratic interdependence with their followers via the conscious manipulation of a prophetic image.

(2) Concomitant role conceptions differentiate totalitarians from authoritarians. Authoritarians view themselves as individual beings largely content to control and often maintain the status quo. Totalitarian self-conceptions are largely teleological. The tyrant is less a person than an indispensable function to guide and reshape the universe.

(3) Consequently, the utilisation of power for personal aggrandizement is more evident among authoritarians than totalitarians. Lacking the binding appeal of ideology, authoritarians support their rule by a mixture of instilling fear and granting rewards to loyal collaborators, engendering a kleptocracy.[57]

Compared to totalitarianism, "the authoritarian state still maintains a certain distinction between state and society. It is only concerned with political power and as long as that is not contested it gives society a certain degree of liberty. Totalitarianism, on the other hand, invades private life and asphyxiates it".[58] Another distinction is that "authoritarianism is not animated by utopian ideals in the way totalitarianism is. It does not attempt to change the world and human nature".[58] Carl Joachim Friedrich writes that "a totalist ideology, a party reinforced by a secret police, and monopoly control of [...] industrial mass society" are the three features of totalitarian regimes that distinguish them from other autocracies.[58]

Competitive authoritarian regimes

Another type of authoritarian regime is the competitive authoritarian regime, a type of civilian regime that arose in the post-Cold War era. In a competitive authoritarian regime, "formal democratic institutions exist and are widely viewed as the primary means of gaining power, but ... incumbents' abuse of the state places them at a significant advantage vis-à-vis their opponents".[59][60] The term was coined by Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way in their 2010 book of the same name to discuss a type of hybrid regime that emerged during and after the Cold War.[59][61]

Competitive authoritarian regimes differ from fully authoritarian regimes in that elections are regularly held, the opposition can openly operate without a high risk of exile or imprisonment and "democratic procedures are sufficiently meaningful for opposition groups to take them seriously as arenas through which to contest for power".[59] However, competitive authoritarian regimes lack one or more of the three characteristics of democracies such as free elections (i.e. elections untainted by substantial fraud or voter intimidation); protection of civil liberties (i.e. the freedom of speech, press and association) and an even playing field (in terms of access to resources, the media and legal recourse).[62]

Authoritarianism and democracy

Authoritarianism and democracy are not necessarily fundamental opposites as it is possible for some democracies to possess authoritarian elements, and for an authoritarian system to have democratic elements.[63][64][65] An illiberal democracy, or procedural democracy, is distinguished from liberal democracy, or substantive democracy, in that illiberal democracies lack features such as the rule of law, protections for minority groups, an independent judiciary and the real separation of powers.[66][67][68][69]

A further distinction that liberal democracies have rarely made war with one another; research has extended the theory and finds that more democratic countries tend to have few wars (sometimes called militarized interstate disputes) causing fewer battle deaths with one another and that democracies have far fewer civil wars.[70][71]

Research shows that the democratic nations have much less democide or murder by government. Those were also moderately developed nations before applying liberal democratic policies.[72] Research by the World Bank suggests that political institutions are extremely important in determining the prevalence of corruption and that parliamentary systems, political stability and freedom of the press are all associated with lower corruption.[73]

A 2006 study by economist Alberto Abadie has concluded that terrorism is most common in nations with intermediate political freedom. The nations with the least amount of terrorism are the most and least democratic nations, and that "transitions from an authoritarian regime to a democracy may be accompanied by temporary increases in terrorism".[74] Studies in 2013 and 2017 similarly found a nonlinear relationship between political freedom and terrorism, with the most terrorist attacks occurring in partial democracies and the fewest in "strict autocracies and full-fledged democracies".[75] A 2018 study by Amichai Magen demonstrated that liberal democracies and polyarchies not only suffer fewer terrorist attacks as compared to other regime types, but also suffer fewer casualties in terrorist attacks as compared to other regime types, which may be attributed to higher-quality democracies' responsiveness to their citizens' demands, including "the desire for physical safety", resulting in "investment in intelligence, infrastructure protection, first responders, social resilience, and specialized medical care" which averts casualties.[75] Magen also noted that terrorism in closed autocracies sharply increased starting in 2013.[75]

Authoritarianism and fascism

Authoritarianism is considered a core concept of fascism[76][77][78][79] and scholars agree that a fascist regime is foremost an authoritarian form of government, although not all authoritarian regimes are fascist. While authoritarianism is a defining characteristic of fascism, scholars argue that more distinguishing traits are needed to make an authoritarian regime fascist.[80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88]

Effect on development

Some commentators such as Seymour Martin Lipset argue that low-income authoritarian regimes have certain technocratic "efficiency-enhancing advantages" over low-income democracies that gives authoritarian regimes an advantage in economic development.[89] By contrast, Morton H. Halperin, Joseph T. Siegle and Michael M. Weinstein (2005) argue that democracies "realize superior development performance" over authoritarianism, pointing out that poor democracies are more likely to have steadier economic growth and less likely to experience economic and humanitarian catastrophes (such as refugee crises) than authoritarian regimes; that civil liberties in democracies act as a curb on corruption and misuse of resources; and that democracies are more adaptable than authoritarian regimes.[89]

Studies suggest that several health indicators (life expectancy and infant and maternal mortality) have a stronger and more significant association with democracy than they have with GDP per capita, size of the public sector or income inequality.[90] Prominent economist Amartya Sen has theorized that no functioning liberal democracy has ever suffered a large-scale famine.[91]

Examples

There is no one consensus definition of authoritarianism, but several annual measurements are attempted, including Freedom House's annual Freedom in the World report.

Current

The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples of states which are currently or frequently characterized as authoritarian.

State	Time period	Ruling group or person	Notes
Angola	1975–	People's Movement for the Liberation of Angola	[92]
Azerbaijan	1993–	New Azerbaijan Party	[93]
Bahrain	1746–	House of Khalifa	[94]
Belarus	1994–	Alexander Lukashenko	[95][96][97][98][99]
Republika Srpska	2006–	Milorad Dodik	[100][101][102]
Cambodia	1985–	Hun Sen	[103][104]
Cameroon	1982–	Paul Biya	[105][106]
Chad	1990–	Idriss Deby	[107]
People's Republic of China	1949–	Communist Party of China	"Some scholars have deemed the Chinese system a 'fragmented authoritarianism' (Lieberthal), a 'negotiated state' or a 'consultative authoritarian regime'".[108] According to research by John Kennedy et al. (2018), Chinese citizens with higher education tend to participate less in local elections and have lower levels of democratic values when compared to those with only compulsory education.[109]
Republic of the Congo	1979–	Denis Sassou Nguesso	[110]
Cuba	1959–	Communist Party of Cuba	[111]
Egypt	2014–	Abdel Fattah el-Sisi	[112]
Equatorial Guinea	1979–	Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo	[113]
Eritrea	1993–	Isaias Afwerki	[114]
Gabon	1961–	Gabonese Democratic Party	[115]
Hungary	2010–	Viktor Orbán	It has recently moved more towards illiberalism.[116][117][118]
Iran	1981–	Ruhollah Khomeini and Ali Khamenei	[119] Linz wrote in 2000 that "it is difficult to fit the Iranian regime into the existing typology, as it combines the ideological bent of totalitarianism with the limited pluralism of authoritarianism and holds regular elections in which candidates advocating differing policies and incumbents are often defeated".[120]
Jordan	1946–	House of Hashim	[121]
Kazakhstan	1990–	Nur Otan	[105]
Laos	1975–	Lao People's Revolutionary Party	[122]
Morocco	1957–	Alaouite dynasty	[121][123][124]
Montenegro	1990–	Democratic Party of Socialists of Montenegro	[125][126][127][128][129]
North Korea	1947–	Kim dynasty and the Korean Workers' Party	[130]
Oman	1970–	House of Al Said	[131]
Palestine	1964–2006	Palestine Liberation Organization	[132]
	2006–	Hamas
Qatar	1971–	House of Thani	[133]
Russian Federation	1999–	United Russia under Vladimir Putin	Has authoritarian tendencies and is described by some as "really a mixture of authoritarianism and managed democracy"[134][135][136] (see Putinism for more).
Rwanda	2000–	Paul Kagame	[137]
Saudi Arabia	1744–	House of Saud	[138]
Serbia	2012–	Serbian Progressive Party under Aleksandar Vučić	[139][140][141][142]
Singapore	1965–	People's Action Party	[143][144]
South Sudan	2011–	Sudan People's Liberation Movement under Salva Kiir Mayardit	[145]
Syria	1963–	Ba'athist regime and al-Assad family	[146]
Tajikistan	1994–	Emomali Rahmon	[147]
Turkey	2003–	Justice and Development Party under Recep Tayyip Erdogan	Described as a "competitive authoritarian regime".[148]
Turkmenistan	1991–	Democratic Party of Turkmenistan	[149]
United Arab Emirates	1972–	Royal families of the United Arab Emirates	[150][151]
Uganda	1964–		[152]
Uzbekistan	1989–	Uzbekistan Liberal Democratic Party	[153][154][155]
Venezuela	1999–	United Socialist Party of Venezuela under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro	[156]
Vietnam	1976–	Vietnamese Communist Party	[157]

Historical

The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples of states which were historically authoritarian.

State	Time period	Ruling group or person	Notes
Algeria[158]	1999–2019	Abdelaziz Bouteflika
Argentina[159][160]	1966–1973	Military government	Argentine Revolution period of military rule.
	1973–1974	Justicialista rule of Juan Perón	Ideology is populist authoritarianism.
	1976–1983	Free trade and deregulatory rule of Jorge Rafael Videla	National Reorganization Process period of military rule.
Austria	1934–1938	Party of National Unity	Federal State of Austria.
Brazil[161]	1937–1945	Getúlio Vargas	Estado Novo period.
	1964–1985	Military government
Burma[162]	1962–2011	Military government and Socialist Programme Party
Burundi	2005–2020	Pierre Nkurunziza	[163]
Chile[164]	1973–1990	Augusto Pinochet
Republic of China	1927–1949	Kuomintang and Nationalist government
Democratic Republic of the Congo	1965–2019	Mobutu Sese Seko, Laurent-Désiré Kabila and Joseph Kabila	[165]
Croatia[166][167]	1990–1999	Franjo Tuđman
Czechoslovakia	1938–1939	Party of National Unity
Egypt[168]	1952–2011	Gamal Abdel Nasser, Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak
Ethiopia	1991–2019	Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front	[169]
Hungary[170]	1920–1944	Miklós Horthy, Unity Party
Indonesia	1967–1998	Suharto	New Order.
Iran	1925–1979	Pahlavi dynasty	[171]
Libya[172]	1969–2011	Muammar Gaddafi
Lithuania[173]	1926–1940	Antanas Smetona
FYR Macedonia[174][175]	2006–2016	Nikola Gruevski
Portugal[176]	1926–1933	Military government	National Dictatorship.
	1933–1974	António de Oliveira Salazar and Marcelo Caetano	Under the Estado Novo regime.
Spain[177]	1936–1975	Francisco Franco
South Africa[178][179]	1948–1994	National Party	Regime ended with the end of apartheid.
South Korea[180][181]	1948–1960	Syngman Rhee
	1962–1987	Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan
Sudan[105]	1989–2019	Omar al-Bashir
Taiwan[182]	1945–1986	Kuomintang
Thailand	2014–2019	Prayut Chan-o-cha	Overthrew the democratically elected government of Yingluck Shinawatra in a military coup and installed a military junta to oversee the governance of Thailand.[183]
Turkey[184][185]	1925–1945	Republican People's Party
Yugoslavia[186][187]	1944–1980	Josip Broz Tito
FR Yugoslavia[188][189]	1991–2000	Slobodan Milošević
Zimbabwe[190]	1980–2017	Robert Mugabe

Historical trends

Anti-authoritarianism

Main article: Anti-authoritarianism

Both World War II (ending in 1945) and the Cold War (ending in 1991) resulted in the replacement of authoritarian regimes by either democratic regimes or regimes that were less authoritarian.

World War II saw the defeat of the Axis powers by the Allied powers. All the Axis powers (Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan) had totalitarian or authoritarian governments, and two of the three were replaced by governments based on democratic constitutions. The Allied powers were an alliance of Democratic states and (later) the Communist Soviet Union. At least in Western Europe the initial post-war era embraced pluralism and freedom of expression in areas that had been under control of authoritarian regimes. The memory of fascism and Nazism was denigrated. The new Federal Republic of Germany banned its expression. In reaction to the centralism of the Nazi state, the new constitution of West Germany (Federal Republic of Germany) exercised "separation of powers" and placed "law enforcement firmly in the hands" of the sixteen Länder or states of the republic, not with the federal German government, at least not at first.[191]

Culturally there was also a strong sense of anti-authoritarianism based on anti-fascism in Western Europe. This was attributed to the active resistance from occupation and to fears arising from the development of superpowers.[192] Anti-authoritarianism also became associated with countercultural and bohemian movements such as the Beat Generation in the 1950s,[193] the hippies in the 1960s[194] and punks in the 1970s.[195]

In South America, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, Chile and Uruguay moved away from dictatorships to democracy between 1982 and 1990.[196]

With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the Soviet Union in 1991, the other authoritarian/totalitarian "half" of the Allied Powers of World War II collapsed. This led not so much to revolt against authority in general, but to the belief that authoritarian states (and state control of economies) were outdated.[197] The idea that "liberal democracy was the final form toward which all political striving was directed"[198] became very popular in Western countries and was celebrated in Francis Fukuyama's book The End of History and the Last Man.[198] According to Charles H. Fairbanks Jr., "all the new states that stumbled out of the ruins of the Soviet bloc, except Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, seemed indeed to be moving toward democracy in the early 1990s" as where the countries of East Central Europe and the Balkans.[199]

In late 2010, the Arab Spring arose in response to unrest over economic stagnation but also in opposition to oppressive authoritarian regimes, first in Tunisia[200][201] and spreading to Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Bahrain and elsewhere. Regimes were toppled in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and partially in Yemen while other countries saw riots, civil wars or insurgencies.[202]

Authoritarian revival

From 2005 to 2015, observers noted what some called a "democratic recession",[198][203] although some such as Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way have disputed this theory.[203] In 2018, the Freedom House declared that from 2006 to 2018 "113 countries" around the world showed "a net decline" in "political rights and civil liberties" while "only 62" experienced "a net improvement".[204]

Writing in 2018, American political journalist David Frum stated:

The hopeful world of the very late 20th century—the world of NAFTA and an expanding NATO; of the World Wide Web 1.0 and liberal interventionism; of the global spread of democracy under leaders such as Václav Havel and Nelson Mandela—now looks battered and delusive.[205]

Michael Ignatieff wrote that Fukuyama's idea of liberalism vanquishing authoritarianism "now looks like a quaint artifact of a vanished unipolar moment"[198] and Fukuyama himself expressed concern.[197] By 2018, only one Arab Spring uprising (that in Tunisia) resulted in a transition to constitutional democratic governance[202] and a "resurgence of authoritarianism and Islamic extremism" in the region[206] was dubbed the Arab Winter.[207][208][209][210][211]

Various explanations have been offered for the new spread of authoritarianism. They include the downside of globalization[212] and the success of the Beijing Consensus, i.e. the authoritarian model of the People's Republic of China.[213] In countries such as the United States, factors blamed for the growth of authoritarianism include the financial crisis of 2007–2008 and slower real wage growth[214] as well as social media's elimination of so-called "gatekeepers" of knowledge so that a large fraction of the population considers to be opinion what were once "viewed as verifiable facts", including everything from the danger of global warming to the preventing the spread of disease through vaccination.[215]

See also

• Authoritarian capitalism
• Authoritarian socialism
• Anti-democratic thought
• Autocracy
• Centralisation
• Criticism of liberal democracy
• Illiberal democracy
• Managed democracy
• Totalitarianism

Notes

1. Furio Cerutti (2017). Conceptualizing Politics: An Introduction to Political Philosophy. Routledge. p. 17. Political scientists have outlined elaborated typologies of authoritarianism, from which it is not easy to draw a generally accepted definition; it seems that its main features are the non-acceptance of conflict and plurality as normal elements of politics, the will to preserve the status quo and prevent change by keeping all political dynamics under close control by a strong central power, and lastly, the erosion of the rule of law, the division of powers, and democratic voting procedures.
2. Natasha M. Ezrow & Erica Frantz (2011). Dictators and Dictatorships: Understanding Authoritarian Regimes and Their Leaders. Continuum. p. 17.
3. Brian Lai & Dan Slater (2006). "Institutions of the Offensive: Domestic Sources of Dispute Initiation in Authoritarian Regimes, 1950-1992". American Journal of Political Science. 50 (1): 113–126. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00173.x. JSTOR 3694260.CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (link)
4. Richard Shorten, Modernism and Totalitarianism: Rethinking the Intellectual Sources of Nazism and Stalinism, 1945 to the Present (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), p. 256 (note 67): "For a long time the authoritative definition of authoritarianism was that of Juan J. Linz."
5. Juan J. Linz, "An Authoritarian Regime: The Case of Spain," in Erik Allardt and Yrjö Littunen, eds., Cleavages, Ideologies, and Party Systems: Contributions to Comparative Political Sociology (Helsinki: Transactions of the Westermarck Society), pp. 291-342. Reprinted in Erik Allardt & Stine Rokkan, eds., Mas Politics: Studies in Political Sociology (New York: Free Press, 1970), pp.251-83, 374-81.
6. Gretchen Casper, Fragile Democracies: The Legacies of Authoritarian Rule (University of Pittsburgh Press, 1995), pp. 40–50 (citing Linz 1964).
7. Milan W. Svolik (2012). The Politics of Authoritarian Rule. Cambridge University Press. pp. 22–23. I follow Przeworski et al. (2000), Boix (2003), and Cheibub et al. (2010) in defining a dictatorship as an independent country that fails to satisfy at least one of the following two criteria for democracy: (1) free and competitive legislative elections and (2) an executive that is elected either directly in free and competitive presidential elections or indirectly by a legislature in parliamentary systems. Throughout this book, I use the terms dictatorship and authoritarian regime interchangeably and refer to the heads of these regimes' governments as simply dictators or authoritarian leaders, regardless of their formal title.
8. Milan W. Svolik (2012). The Politics of Authoritarian Rule. Cambridge University Press. p. 20. More demanding criteria may require that governments respect certain civil liberties– such as the freedom of religion (Schmitter and Karl 1991; Zakaria 1997) — or that the incumbent government and the opposition alternate in power at least once after the first seemingly free election (Huntington 1993; Przeworski et al. 2000; Cheibib et al. 2010).
9. Milan W. Svolik (2012). The Politics of Authoritarian Rule. Cambridge University Press. pp. 8, 12, 22, 25, 88, 117.
10. Milan W. Svolik (2012). The Politics of Authoritarian Rule. Cambridge University Press. p. 25.
11. Theodore M. Vesta, Ethiopia: A Post-Cold War African State. Greenwood, 1999, p. 17.
12. Przeworski, Adam (26 July 1991). Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Cambridge University Press. p. 58. ISBN 9780521423359.
13. Andrew J. Nathan, "Authoritarian Resilience", Journal of Democracy, 14.1 (2003), pp. 6–17.
14. Gandhi, Jennifer; Noble, Ben; Svolik, Milan (2020). "Legislatures and Legislative Politics Without Democracy". Comparative Political Studies: 001041402091993. doi:10.1177/0010414020919930. ISSN 0010-4140.
15. Geddes, Barbara; Wright, Joseph; Frantz, Erica (2018). How Dictatorships Work. Cambridge University Press. pp. 137–140. doi:10.1017/9781316336182. ISBN 978-1-316-33618-2.
16. Hong, Hao; Wong, Tsz-Ning (2020). "Authoritarian election as an incentive scheme". Journal of Theoretical Politics. doi:10.1177/0951629820910563. ISSN 0951-6298.
17. Michael Albertus & Victor Menaldo, "The Political Economy of Autocratic Constitutions", in Constitutions in Authoritarian Regimes (eds. Tom Ginsburg & Alberto Simpser: Cambridge University Press, 2014), p. 80.
18. Tom Ginsburg & Alberto Simpser, Constitutions in Authoritarian Regimes (Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp. 3–10.
19. Michael Albertus & Victor Menaldo, Constitutions in Authoritarian Regimes (eds. Tom Ginsburg & Alberto Simpser: Cambridge University Press, 2014), p. 54.
20. Davis S. Law & Mila Versteeg, "Constitutional Variation Among Strains of Authoritarianism" in Constitutions in Authoritarian Regimes (eds. Tom Ginsburg & Alberto Simpser: Cambridge University Press, 2014), p. 173.
21. Michael Albertus & Victor Menaldo, Constitutions in Authoritarian Regimes (eds. Tom Ginsburg & Alberto Simpser: Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp. 54, 80.
22. Tushnet, Mark (January 2015). "Authoritarian Constitutionalism". Cornell Law Review. Cambridge University Press. 100 (2): 36–50. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107252523.004.
23. Milan W. Svolik (2012). The Politics of Authoritarian Rule. Cambridge University Press. pp. 2, 15, 23.
24. Quinlivan, James T. (1999). "Coup-Proofing". RAND Corporation.
25. Powell, Jonathan (1 December 2012). "Determinants of the Attempting and Outcome of Coups d'état". Journal of Conflict Resolution. 56 (6): 1017–1040. doi:10.1177/0022002712445732. ISSN 0022-0027. S2CID 54646102.
26. Braithwaite, Jessica Maves; Sudduth, Jun Koga (1 January 2016). "Military purges and the recurrence of civil conflict". Research & Politics. 3 (1): 2053168016630730. doi:10.1177/2053168016630730. ISSN 2053-1680.
27. Narang, Vipin; Talmadge, Caitlin (31 January 2017). "Civil-military Pathologies and Defeat in War". Journal of Conflict Resolution. 62 (7): 1379–1405. doi:10.1177/0022002716684627.
28. Brown, Cameron S.; Fariss, Christopher J.; McMahon, R. Blake (1 January 2016). "Recouping after Coup-Proofing: Compromised Military Effectiveness and Strategic Substitution". International Interactions. 42 (1): 1–30. doi:10.1080/03050629.2015.1046598. ISSN 0305-0629.(subscription required)
29. Bausch, Andrew W. (2018). "Coup-proofing and Military Inefficiencies: An Experiment". International Interactions. 0 (ja): 1–32. doi:10.1080/03050629.2017.1289938. ISSN 0305-0629.
30. Leon, Gabriel (1 April 2014). "Soldiers or politicians? Institutions, conflict, and the military's role in politics". Oxford Economic Papers. 66 (2): 533–556. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.1000.7058. doi:10.1093/oep/gpt024. ISSN 0030-7653.
31. Frantz, Erica; Stein, Elizabeth A. (4 July 2016). "Countering Coups Leadership Succession Rules in Dictatorships". Comparative Political Studies. 50 (7): 935–962. doi:10.1177/0010414016655538. ISSN 0010-4140.
32. Curtis Bell & Jonathan Powell (30 July 2016). "Will Turkey's coup attempt prompt others nearby?". Washington Post.CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (link)
33. Böhmelt, Tobias; Ruggeri, Andrea; Pilster, Ulrich (1 April 2017). "Counterbalancing, Spatial Dependence, and Peer Group Effects*" (PDF). Political Science Research and Methods. 5 (2): 221–239. doi:10.1017/psrm.2015.55. ISSN 2049-8470.
34. Easton, Malcolm R.; Siverson, Randolph M. (2018). "Leader survival and purges after a failed coup d'état". Journal of Peace Research. 55 (5): 596–608. doi:10.1177/0022343318763713.
35. Escribà-Folch, Abel; Böhmelt, Tobias; Pilster, Ulrich (2019-04-09). "Authoritarian regimes and civil–military relations: Explaining counterbalancing in autocracies". Conflict Management and Peace Science: 0738894219836285. doi:10.1177/0738894219836285. ISSN 0738-8942.
36. Frantz, Erica; Kendall-Taylor, Andrea; Wright, Joseph; Xu, Xu (2020). "Personalization of Power and Repression in Dictatorships". The Journal of Politics. 82: 372–377. doi:10.1086/706049. ISSN 0022-3816.
37. Guriev, Sergei; Treisman, Daniel (2019). "Informational Autocrats". Journal of Economic Perspectives. 33 (4): 100–127. doi:10.1257/jep.33.4.100. ISSN 0895-3309.
38. Albertus, Michael; Fenner, Sofia; Slater, Dan (2018). "Coercive Distribution by Michael Albertus". Elements in the Politics of Development. Retrieved 5 November 2019.
39. Lipset, Seymour Martin (1959). "Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy". The American Political Science Review. 53 (1): 69–105. doi:10.2307/1951731. ISSN 0003-0554. JSTOR 1951731. S2CID 53686238.
40. Boix, Carles; Stokes, Susan C. (July 2003). "Endogenous Democratization". World Politics. 55 (4): 517–549. doi:10.1353/wp.2003.0019. ISSN 0043-8871.
41. Capitalist Development and Democracy. University Of Chicago Press. 1992.
42. Przeworski, Adam; Limongi, Fernando (1997). "Modernization: Theories and Facts". World Politics. 49 (2): 155–183. doi:10.1353/wp.1997.0004. ISSN 0043-8871. JSTOR 25053996.
43. Bellin, Eva (January 2000). "Contingent Democrats: Industrialists, Labor, and Democratization in Late-Developing Countries". World Politics. 52 (2): 175–205. doi:10.1017/S0043887100002598. ISSN 1086-3338.
44. Magaloni, Beatriz (September 2006). "Voting for Autocracy: Hegemonic Party Survival and its Demise in Mexico". Cambridge Core. Retrieved 2019-12-17.
45. Mark J. Gasiorowski, The Political Regimes Project, in On Measuring Democracy: Its Consequences and Concomitants (ed. Alex Inketes), 2006, pp. 110–11.
46. Heinrich, Andreas; Pleines, Heiko (2018). "The Meaning of 'Limited Pluralism' in Media Reporting under Authoritarian Rule". Politics and Governance. 6 (2): 103. doi:10.17645/pag.v6i2.1238.
47. Maire O'Brien (1998). "Dissent and the emergence of civil society in post‐totalitarian China". Journal of Contemporary China. 7 (17): 153–166. doi:10.1080/10670569808724310.
48. H. H. Lai (2006). "Religious policies in post-totalitarian China: Maintaining political monopoly over a reviving society". Journal of Chinese Political Science. 11: 55–77. doi:10.1007/BF02877033.
49. Paul Mozur and Aaron Krolik (December 17, 2019). "A Surveillance Net Blankets China's Cities, Giving Police Vast Powers". New York Times.CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (link)
50. Xiao Qiang (February 21, 2018). "The rise of China as a digital totalitarian state". Washington Post.
51. Michael Clarke (March 10, 2018). "In Xinjiang, China's 'Neo-Totalitarian' Turn Is Already a Reality". The Diplomat.
52. Juan de Onis, "After Chavez, Authoritarianism Still Threatens Latin America" Archived 2018-07-04 at the Wayback Machine, World Affairs (May 15, 2013): "the followers of the late President Hugo Chávez continue to apply the playbook of authoritarian populism throughout Latin America in their pursuit of more power...one of the Mercosur partners are challenging the basic political practices of authoritarian populism implanted in Venezuela."
53. Kurt Weyland, "Latin America's Authoritarian Drift: The Threat from the Populist Left", Journal of Democracy, Vol. 23, Issue 3 (July 2013), pp. 18–32.
54. Duckitt, J. (1989). "Authoritarianism and Group Identification: A New View of an Old Construct". Political Psychology. 10 (1): 63–84. doi:10.2307/3791588. JSTOR 3791588.
55. Kemmelmeier, M.; Burnstein, E.; Krumov, K.; Genkova, P.; Kanagawa, C.; Hirshberg, M. S.; Erb, H. P.; Wieczorkowska, G.; Noels, K. A. (2003). "Individualism, Collectivism, and Authoritarianism in Seven Societies". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 34 (3): 304. doi:10.1177/0022022103034003005. S2CID 32361036.
56. Todd Landman, Studying Human Rights (Routledge, 2003), p. 71 (citing Linz 1964 and others).
57. Sondrol, P. C. (2009). "Totalitarian and Authoritarian Dictators: A Comparison of Fidel Castro and Alfredo Stroessner". Journal of Latin American Studies. 23 (3): 599. doi:10.1017/S0022216X00015868. S2CID 144333167.
58. Radu Cinpoes, Nationalism and Identity in Romania: A History of Extreme Politics from the Birth of the State to EU Accession, p. 70.
59. Levitsky, Steven; Way, Lucan A. (2010). Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War. Cambridge University Press. pp. 5–7. ISBN 9781139491488.
60. Mufti, Mariam (2018). "What Do We Know about Hybrid Regimes after Two Decades of Scholarship?". Politics and Governance. 6 (5): 112. doi:10.17645/pag.v6i2.1400.
61. Tomasky, Michael (1 July 2019). "Do the Republicans Even Believe in Democracy Anymore?". New York Times. Retrieved 3 July 2019.
62. Levitsky & Way (2010), pp. 7-12.
63. Frantz, Erica (2018). "Authoritarian Politics: Trends and Debates". Politics and Governance. 6 (2): 87. doi:10.17645/pag.v6i2.1498.
64. Citizens and the State in Authoritarian Regimes: Comparing China and Russia. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. 2020. ISBN 978-0-19-009349-5.
65. "In South Carolina, Democrats debated when a dictator is really a dictator. So what's the answer?". The Washington Post. 2020.
66. Thomas H. Henriksen, American Power after the Berlin Wall (Palgrave Macmillan: 2007), p. 199: "experts emphasize that elections alone, without the full democratic panoply of an independent judiciary, free press, and viable political parties, constitute, in reality, illiberal democracies, which still menace their neighbors and destabilize their regions."
67. David P. Forsythe, Human Rights in International Relations (Cambridge University Press, 2012), p. 231: "Illiberal democracies may have reasonably free and fair national elections based on broad suffrage, but they do not counteract the tyranny of the majority with effective protections for ethnic and religious minorities or various types of dissenters."
68. Rod Hague & Martin Harrop, Political Science: A Comparative Introduction (7th ed.: Palgrave Macmillan: 2007), p. 259: "The gradual implementation of the rule of law and due process is an accomplishment of liberal politics, provide a basis for distinguishing liberal from illiberal democracies, and both from authoritarian regimes."
69. Vladimir Popov, "Circumstances versus Policy Choices: Why Has the Economic Performance of the Soviet Successor States Been So Poor" in After the Collapse of Communism: Comparative Lessons of Transition (eds. Michael McFaul & Kathryn Stoner-Weiss: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 20: "The least efficient institutions are in illiberal democracies combining poor rule of law with democracy ... Less democratic regimes with weak rule of law ... appear to do better than illiberal democracies in maintaining institutional capacity."
70. Hegre, Håvard; Tanja Ellington; Scott Gates & Nils Petter Gleditsch (2001). "Towards A Democratic Civil Peace? Opportunity, Grievance and Civil War 1816-1992". American Political Science Review. 95: 33–48. doi:10.1017/S0003055401000119. Archived from the original on 2004-04-06.
71. Ray, James Lee (2013). Colin Elman; Miriam Fendius Elman (eds.). A Lakatosian View of the Democratic Peace Research Program From Progress in International Relations Theory (PDF). MIT Press. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-06-25.
72. R. J. Rummel (1997). Power kills: democracy as a method of nonviolence. New Brunswick, New Jersey, United States U.S.A: Transaction Publishers. ISBN 978-1-56000-297-0.
73. Daniel Lederman, Norman Loayza, & Rodrigo Res Soares, "Accountability and Corruption: Political Institutions Matter", World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2708 (November 2001).
74. Alberto Abadie (May 2006). "Poverty, Political Freedom, and the Roots of Terrorism". American Economic Review. 96 (2): 50–56. doi:10.1257/000282806777211847.
75. Amichai Magen (January 2018). "Fighting Terrorism: The Democracy Advantage". Journal of Democracy. 29 (1): 111–125. doi:10.1353/jod.2018.0009.
76. Nolte, Ernst (1965). The Three Faces of Fascism: Action Française, Italian Fascism, National Socialism. Translated by Leila Vennewitz. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. p. 300. ISBN 9780030522406.
77. Turner, Henry Ashby (1975). Reappraisals of Fascism. New Viewpoints. p. 162. ISBN 9780531055793. "[Fascism]'s goals of radical and authoritarian nationalism".
78. Hagtvet, Bernt; Larsen, Stein Ugelvik; Myklebust, Jan Petter, eds. (1984). Who Were the Fascists: Social Roots of European Fascism. Columbia University Press. p. 424. ISBN 9788200053316. "[...] organized form of integrative radical nationalist authoritarianism".
79. Paxton, Robert (2004). The Anatomy of Fascism. Alfred A. Knopf. pp. 32, 45, 173. ISBN 9781400040940.
80. Weber, Eugen (1964). Varieties of fascism : doctrines of revolution in the twentieth century (reprint ed.). New York: Van Nostrand. ISBN 978-0898744446.
81. Laclau, Ernesto (1977). Politics and ideology in Marxist theory : capitalism, fascism, populism (English-language ed.). London: Verso. ISBN 978-1844677887.
82. Fritzsche, Peter (1990). Rehearsals for fascism : populism and political mobilization in Weimar Germany (1st printing ed.). New York: Oxford Univ. Press. ISBN 978-0-19-505780-5.
83. Griffin, Roger (1991). The nature of fascism (1st American ed.). New York: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-0312071325.
84. Payne, Stanley G. (1995). A history of fascism, 1914-45. London: UCL Press. ISBN 978-0-299-14874-4.
85. Eatwell, Roger (1996). Fascism : a history (1st American ed.). New York: Allen Lane. ISBN 978-0713991475.
86. Laqueur, Walter (1996). Fascism : past, present, future (reprint ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0195117936.
87. Reich, Wilhelm (2000). The mass psychology of fascism (3rd revised and enlarged ed.). New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. ISBN 978-0374508845.
88. Paxton, Robert (2004). The Anatomy of Fascism (1st ed.). New York: Knopf Imprint. ISBN 978-1-4000-4094-0.
89. Morton H. Halperin, Joseph T. Siegle, & Michael M. Weinstein, The Democracy Advantage: How Democracies Promote Prosperity and Peace (Council on Foreign Relations/Psychology Press, 2005).
90. Franco, Á.; Álvarez-Dardet, C.; Ruiz, M. T. (2004). "Effect of democracy on health: ecological study". BMJ. 329 (7480): 1421–23. doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7480.1421. PMC 535957. PMID 15604165.
91. Sen, A. K. (1999). "Democracy as a Universal Value". Journal of Democracy. 10 (3): 3–17. doi:10.1353/jod.1999.0055.
92. "Freedom in the World Angola Report". Retrieved 19 April 2018.
93. Vincent, Rebecca (19 May 2013). "When the music dies: Azerbaijan one year after Eurovision". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 10 June 2013. Over the past several years, Azerbaijan has become increasingly authoritarian, as the authorities have used tactics such as harassment, intimidation, blackmail, attack and imprisonment to silence the regime’s critics, whether journalists, bloggers, human rights defenders, political activists or ordinary people taking to the streets in protest.
94. Nebil Husayn, Authoritarianism in Bahrain: Motives, Methods and Challenges, AMSS 41st Annual Conference (September 29, 2012); Parliamentary Elections and Authoritarian Rule in Bahrain (January 13, 2011), Stanford University
95. Rausing, Sigrid (7 October 2012). "Belarus: inside Europe's last dictatorship". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 7 August 2014.
96. "Belarus's Lukashenko: "Better a dictator than gay"". Berlin. Reuters. 4 March 2012. ...German Foreign Minister's branding him 'Europe's last dictator'
97. "Profile: Alexander Lukashenko". BBC News. BBC. 9 January 2007. Retrieved 7 August 2014. ..an authoritarian ruling style is characteristic of me [Lukashenko]
98. "Essential Background – Belarus". Human Rights Watch. 2005. Retrieved 26 March 2006.
99. "Human rights by country – Belarus". Amnesty International Report 2007. Amnesty International. 2007. Archived from the original on 12 December 2007. Retrieved 22 December 2007.
100. Bieber, Florian (July 2018). "Patterns of competitive authoritarianism in the Western Balkans". East European Politics. 38 (3): 337–54. doi:10.1080/21599165.2018.1490272.
101. "Milorad Dodik Wants to Carve Up Bosnia. Peacefully, if Possible". The New York Times. 16 February 2018. Retrieved 5 January 2019.
102. "Correction: Bosnia-Journalist Beaten story". Associated Press. 28 September 2018. Retrieved 5 January 2019.
103. Elisabeth Bumiller (November 16, 2012). "In Cambodia, Panetta Reaffirms Ties With Authoritarian Government". The New York Times.
104. Morgenbesser, Lee (2020). The Rise of Sophisticated Authoritarianism in Southeast Asia. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108630061. ISBN 9781108630061. Retrieved 1 May 2020.
105. Freedom House (2016). Freedom in the World 2016: Anxious Dictators, Wavering Democracies: Global Freedom Under Pressure (PDF).
106. "Amnesty International Report 2009: State of the World's Human Rights". Amnesty International. 2009. Archived from the original on 2011-10-08.
107. "Freedom in the World Chad Report". Retrieved 19 April 2018.
108. Ming Xia, China Rises Companion: Political Governance, The New York Times. See also Cheng Li, The End of the CCP’s Resilient Authoritarianism? A Tripartite Assessment of Shifting Power in China (September 2012), The China Quarterly, Vol. 211; Perry Link and Joshua Kurlantzick, China's Modern Authoritarianism (May 25, 2009), The Wall Street Journal; Ariana Eunjung Cha, China, Cuba, Other Authoritarian Regimes Censor News From Iran (June 27, 2009), The Washington Post.
109. Kennedy, John; Nagao, Haruka; Liu, Hongyan (2018). "Voting and Values: Grassroots Elections in Rural and Urban China". Politics and Governance. 6 (2): 90. doi:10.17645/pag.v6i2.1331.
110. "Freedom in the World Republic of Congo Report". Retrieved 19 April 2018.
111. Ariana Eunjung Cha, China, Cuba, Other Authoritarian Regimes Censor News From Iran (June 27, 2009), The Washington Post; Shanthi Kalathil and Taylor Boas, Internet and State Control in Authoritarian Regimes: China, Cuba and the Counterrevolution (July 16, 2001), Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
112. Amr Adly, The Economics of Egypt’s Rising Authoritarian Order, Carnegie Middle East Center, June 18, 2014; Nathan J. Brown & Katie Bentivoglio, Egypt's Resurgent Authoritarianism: It's a Way of Life, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, October 9, 2014; Roula Khalaf, Sisi’s Egypt: The march of the security state, Financial Times (December 19, 2016); Peter Hessler, Egypt's Failed Revolution, New Yorker, January 2, 2017.
113. "Freedom in the World Equatorial Guinea Report". Retrieved 19 April 2018.
114. "Freedom in the World Eritea Report". Retrieved 19 April 2018.
115. "Freedom in the World Gabon Report". Retrieved 19 April 2018.
116. Rohac, Dalibor. "Hungary and Poland Aren't Democratic. They're Authoritarian". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2019-10-23.
117. Mounk, Yascha (2018-04-09). "The Re-election of Hungary's Anti-Semitic, Authoritarian Prime Minister Disproves Everything We Thought We Knew About Democracy". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 2019-10-23.
118. Viktor Orbán Is Exploiting Anti-Semitism. Ira Forman, The Atlantic, 14 December 2018
119. Mehrdad Kia, id=BaE3AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA75#v=onepage&q&f=false The Making of Modern Authoritarianism in Contemporary Iran, in Modern Middle East Authoritarianism: Roots, Ramifications, and Crisis (Routledge: 2013; eds. Noureddine Jebnoun, Mehrdad Kia & Mimi Kirk), pp. 75–76.
120. Juan José Linz, Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes (Lynne Rienner, 2000), p. 36.
121. Yom, Sean (16 May 2017). "Why Jordan and Morocco are doubling down on royal rule". Washington Post.
122. Beckert, Jen. "Communitarianism." International Encyclopedia of Economic Sociology. London: Routledge, 2006. 81.
123. "Governance of Morocco". Fanack.com.
124. "Morocco: The Promise of Democracy and the Reality of Authoritarianism". IAI Istituto Affari Internazionali (in Italian). 27 April 2016.
125. "Montenegro's Prime Minister Resigns, Perhaps Bolstering Country's E.U. Hopes". The New York Times. 26 October 2016. Retrieved 12 December 2018.
126. "Montenegro's Djukanovic Declares Victory In Presidential Election". Radio Free Europe. 16 April 2018. Retrieved 12 December 2018.
127. "Djukanovic si riprende il Montenegro con la benedizione di Bruxelles". eastwest.eu. 17 April 2018. Archived from the original on 2 May 2019. Retrieved 12 December 2018.
128. "Đukanović - posljednji autokrat Balkana". Deutsche Welle. 18 June 2013. Retrieved 12 December 2018.
129. "Montenegro veteran PM Djukanovic to run for presidency". France 24. 19 March 2018. Retrieved 12 December 2018.
130. Daniel Byman, Pyongyang’s Survival Strategy: Tools of Authoritarian Control in North Korea, International Security, Vol. 35, issue 1, pp. 44–74 (Summer 2010); Chico Harlan, In authoritarian North Korea, hints of reform, The Washington Post, September 3, 2012.
131. "Oman". freedomhouse.org. 2017-01-24. Retrieved 2019-10-23.
132. "Authoritarianism in Palestine". Middle East Monitor. 2014-10-11. Retrieved 2019-10-23.
133. "Dictators Continue to Score in International Sporting Events". Freedom House.
134. Nikolay Petrov and Michael McFaul, The Essence of Putin's Managed Democracy (October 18, 2005), Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Tom Parfitt, Billionaire tycoon Mikhail Prokhorov who is running in the 4 March election says it is time for evolution not revolution (January 11, 2012), The Guardian; Richard Denton, Russia's 'managed democracy' (May 11, 2006), BBC News.
135. "Nations in Transit 2014 – Russia". Freedom House.
136. "The Myth of the Authoritarian Model – How Putin's Crackdown Holds Russia Back" (PDF). The Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-10-06. Retrieved 2014-10-05.
137. "Freedom in the World Rwanda Report". Retrieved 19 April 2018.
138. Toby Craig Jones, Desert Kingdom: How Oil and Water Forged Modern Saudi Arabia (2011), Harvard University Press, pp. 5, 14–15; Kira D. Baiasu, Sustaining Authoritarian Rule Archived January 2, 2013, at the Wayback Machine Fall 2009, Volume 10, Issue 1 (September 30, 2009), Northwestern Journal of International Affairs.
139. "Serbia election: Pro-EU Prime Minister Vucic claims victory". BBC. 24 April 2016. Retrieved 12 December 2018.
140. "A Serbian Election Erodes Democracy". The New York Times. 9 April 2017. Retrieved 12 December 2018.
141. "Thousands march against Serbian president's autocratic rule". The Washington Post. 8 December 2018. Retrieved 12 December 2018.
142. Eror, Aleks (9 March 2018). "How Aleksandar Vucic Became Europe's Favorite Autocrat". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 12 December 2018.
143. "Lee Kuan Yew leaves a legacy of authoritarian pragmatism". Retrieved 5 May 2017.
144. "January 5, 2017 Fear, smear and the paradox of authoritarian politics in Singapore". Retrieved 5 May 2017.
145. "Freedom in the World South Sudan Report". Retrieved 19 April 2018.
146. Heydemann, Steven; Leenders, Reinoud (2013). Middle East Authoritarianisms: Governance, Contestation, and Regime Resilience in Syria and Iran. Stanford University Press. p. 13. ISBN 978-0804793339.
147. "Freedom in the World Tajikistan Report". Retrieved 19 April 2018.
148. Esena, Berk; Gumuscub, Sebnem (2016). "Rising competitive authoritarianism in Turkey". Third World Quarterly. 37 (9): 1581–1606. doi:10.1080/01436597.2015.1135732. hdl:11693/36632.; Ramazan Kılınç, Turkey: from conservative democracy to popular authoritarianism, openDemocracy (December 5, 2015).
149. "Turkmenistan". hrw.org. Retrieved 4 September 2016.
150. "The dark side of the United Arab Emirates". newint.org. 7 September 2015. Retrieved 22 October 2017.
151. "United Arab Emirates profile". 29 August 2017. Retrieved 22 October 2017 – via www.bbc.com.
152. "Freedom in the World Uganda Report". Retrieved 19 April 2018.
153. Neil J. Melvin, Uzbekistan: Transition to Authoritarianism on the Silk Road (Harwood Academic, 2000), pp. 28–30.
154. Shahram Akbarzadeh, "Post-Soviet Central Asia: The Limits of Islam" in Constitutionalism in Islamic Countries: Between Upheaval and Continuity (Oxford University Press, 2012: eds. Rainer Grote & Tilmann J. Röder), p. 428.
155. "An Uzbek spring has sprung, but summer is still a long way off". The Economist. 2017-12-14. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2019-10-23.
156. Human Rights Watch, Venezuela: Chávez’s Authoritarian Legacy: Dramatic Concentration of Power and Open Disregard for Basic Human Rights, March 5, 2013; Kurt Weyland, Latin America's Authoritarian Drift: The Threat from the Populist Left Archived 2018-10-01 at the Wayback Machine, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 24, No. 3 (July 2013), pp. 18–32.
157. Thomas Fuller, In Hard Times, Open Dissent and Repression Rise in Vietnam (April 23, 2013), The New York Times
158. "Freedom in the World Algeria Report". Retrieved 19 April 2018.
159. Todd L. Edwards, Argentina: A Global Studies Handbook (2008), pp. 45–46; Steven E. Sanderson, The Politics of Trade in Latin American Development (1992), Stanford University Press, p. 133; William C. Smith, Reflections on the Political Economy of Authoritarian Rule and Capitalist Reorganization in Contemporary Argentina, in Generals in Retreat: The Crisis of Military Rule in Latin America (1985), eds. Philip J. O'Brien & Paul A. Cammack, Manchester University Press.
160. Guillermo A. O'Donnell, Bureaucratic Authoritarianism: Argentina, 1966–1973, in Comparative Perspective (University of California Press, 1988); James M. Malloy, Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America: The Modal Pattern, in Democracy in Latin America: Patterns and Cycles (1996; ed. Roderic A. Camp), p. 122; Howard J. Wiards, Corporatism and Comparative Politics: The Other Great "ism" (1997), pp. 113–14.
161. James M. Malloy, Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America: The Modal Pattern, in Democracy in Latin America: Patterns and Cycles (ed. Roderic A. Camp), p. 122; Thomas E. Skidmore, The Political Economy of Policy-making in Authoritarian Brazil, 1967–70, in Generals in Retreat: The Crisis of Military Rule in Latin America (1985), eds. Philip J. O'Brien & Paul A. Cammack, Manchester University Press.
162. Thomas Carothers, Q&A: Is Burma Democratizing? (April 2, 2012), Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; President Discusses Burma/Myanmar in Transition at World Affairs Council Sacramento (April 3, 2013), Asia Foundation; Louise Arbour, In Myanmar, Sanctions Have Had Their Day (March 5, 2012), The New York Times.
163. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/pierre-nkurunziza-burundi-president-who-led-authoritarian-regime-dies-at-55/2020/06/09/f1a582e4-aa60-11ea-a9d9-a81c1a491c52_story.html
164. Steven E. Sanderson, The Politics of Trade in Latin American Development (1992), Stanford University Press, p. 133; Carlos Huneeus, Political Mass Mobilization Against Authoritarian Rule: Pinochet's Chile, 1983–88, in Civil Resistance and Power Politics:The Experience of Non-violent Action from Gandhi to the Present (2009), Oxford University Press (eds. Adam Roberts & Timothy Garton Ash).
165. "Freedom in the World Democratic Republic of Congo Report". Retrieved 19 April 2018.
166. "Franjo Tudjman, Authoritarian leader whose communist past and nationalist obsessions fuelled his ruthless pursuit of an independent Croatia". The Guardian. 13 December 1999. Retrieved 5 January 2019.
167. "Franjo Tuđman". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 5 January 2019.
168. Maye Kassem, Egyptian Politics: The Dynamics of Authoritarian Rule (2004); Andrea M. Perkins, Mubarak's Machine: The Durability of the Authoritarian Regime in Egypt (M.A. thesis, April 8, 2010, University of South Florida).
169. "Freedom in the World Ethiopia Report". Retrieved 19 April 2018.
170. Fischer-Galati, Stephen (2002). "Sources of Authoritarianism in Eastern and South-Eastern Europe". In Berg-Schlosser, Dirk; Mitchell, Jeremy (eds.). Authoritarianism and Democracy in Europe, 1919–39: Comparative Analyses. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 67–68. ISBN 978-1-349-42826-7.
171. Ibrahim, Youssef M. (1979-01-17). "Years of Autocratic Rule by the Shah Threw Iran Into Turbulence". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-10-23.
172. Gaddafi's 41-Year-Long Rule, The Washington Post; Martin Asser, The Muammar Gaddafi Story (October 21, 2011), BBC News; Alistair Dawber, One Libyan in three wants return to authoritarian rule (February 16, 2012), Independent.
173. Misiunas, Romuald J. (1970). "Fascist Tendencies in Lithuania". Slavonic and East European Review. 48 (110): 88–109. JSTOR 4206165.
174. Matthew Brunwasser, Concerns Grow About Authoritarianism in Macedonia, The New York Times, October 13, 2011.
175. Andrew MacDowall, Fears for Macedonia's fragile democracy amid 'coup' and wiretap claims, The Guardian, February 27, 2015.
176. Pinto, António Costa (2006). "Authoritarian legacies, transitional justice and state crisis in Portugal's democratization". Democratization. 13 (2): 173–204. doi:10.1080/13510340500523895. Working paper.
177. Richard Gunther, The Spanish Model Revisited, in The Politics and Memory of Democratic Transition: The Spanish Model, (eds. Diego Muro & Gregorio Alonso), Taylor & Francis 2010, p. 19.
178. Tracy Kuperus, Building a Pluralist Democracy: An Examination of Religious Associations in South Africa and Zimbabwe, in Race and Reconciliation in South Africa: A Multicultural Dialogue in Comparative Perspective (eds. William E. Van Vugt & G. Daan Cloete), Lexington Books, 2000.
179. The South Africa Reader: History, Culture, Politics (eds. Clifton Crais & Thomas V. McClendon; Duke University Press, 2014), p. 279.
180. The Other R.O.K.: Memories of Authoritarianism in Democratic South Korea (October 11, 2011), Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; Sangmook Lee, Democratic Transition and the Consolidation of Democracy in South Korea Archived December 24, 2012, at the Wayback Machine July 2007, Taiwan Journal of Democracy, Volume 3, No. 1, pp. 99–125.
181. Hyug Baeg Im, The Rise of Bureaucratic Authoritarianism in South Korea, World Politics Vol. 39, Issue 2 (January 1987), pp. 231–57
182. Leng, Shao-chuan; Lin, Cheng-yi (1993). "Political Change on Taiwan: Transition to Democracy?". The China Quarterly. 136 (136): 805–39. doi:10.1017/S0305741000032343. ISSN 0305-7410. JSTOR 655592.; Shirley A. Kan, Congressional Research Service, Democratic Reforms in Taiwan: Issues for Congress (May 26, 2010); Taiwan's Electoral Politics and Democratic Transition: Riding the Third Wave (1996), eds. Charles Chi-Hsiang Chang & Hung-Mao Tien; Edward S. Steinfeld, Playing Our Game:Why China's Rise Doesn't Threaten the West (2010), Oxford University Press, pp. 217–22.
183. Jakubowski, Andrzej (2016). Cultural Rights as Collective Rights: An International Law Perspective. Brill – Nijhoff. p. 196. ISBN 978-9004312012.
184. Erik J. Zürcher, Turkey: A Modern History (I.B. Tauris: rev. ed. 1997), pp. 176–206.
185. Ayse Gül Altinay, The Myth of the Military-Nation: Militarism, Gender, and Education in Turkey (Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), pp. 19–20.
186. Andjelic, Neven (2003). Bosnia-Herzegovina: The End of a Legacy. Frank Cass. p. 36. ISBN 978-0-7146-5485-0.
187. McGoldrick 2000, p. 17. sfn error: no target: CITEREFMcGoldrick2000 (help)
188. "Milosevic: Serbia's fallen strongmany". BBC. 30 March 2001. Retrieved 12 December 2018.
189. Pribićević. "Serbia—From Authoritarian Regime to Democracy." Serbian Studies: Journal of the North American Society for Serbian Studies. Project MUSE.
190. Daniel Compagnon, A Predictable Tragedy: Robert Mugabe and the Collapse of Zimbabwe (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011).
191. The Federal Police. Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community of Germany
192. Cox, David (2005). Sign Wars: The Culture Jammers Strike Back!. LedaTape Organisation. p. 108. ISBN 978-0-9807701-5-5. Retrieved 22 October 2011.
193. "Retired Site PBS Programs". pbs.org. Retrieved 4 September 2016.
194. "The way of the hippie is antithetical to all repressive hierarchical power structures since they are adverse to the hippie goals of peace, love and freedom ... Hippies don't impose their beliefs on others. Instead, hippies seek to change the world through reason and by living what they believe."Stone 1994, "The Way of the Hippy" harvnb error: no target: CITEREFStone1994 (help)
195. McLaughlin, Paul (2007). Anarchism and Authority. Aldershot: Ashgate. p. 10. ISBN 978-0-7546-6196-2.
196. "The challenge of the past". The Economist. 22 October 1998. Retrieved 17 October 2018.
197. Tharoor, Ishaan (9 February 2017). "The man who declared 'the end of history' fears for democracy's future". Washington Post. Retrieved 4 October 2018.
198. Ignatieff, Michael (10 July 2014). "Are the Authoritarians Winning?". New York Review of Books. Retrieved 4 October 2018.
199. Fairbanks, Jr., Charles H. (16 January 2014). "Causes of Authoritarianism in the Former Soviet Republics". Heinrich Boell Stiftung. Retrieved 5 October 2018.
200. "Peddler's martyrdom launched Tunisia's revolution. Reuters".
201. "Uprisings in the region and ignored indicators. Payvand Iran News". Archived from the original on 2011-02-14.
202. Ruthven, Malise (23 June 2016). "How to Understand ISIS". New York Review of Books. 63 (11). Archived from the original on 7 August 2016. Retrieved 12 June 2016.
203. Levitsky, Steven; Way, Lucan (January 2015). "The Myth of Democratic Recession" (PDF). Journal of Democracy. 26 (1): 45–58. doi:10.1353/jod.2015.0007. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 August 2018. Retrieved 4 October 2018.
204. "Freedom in the World 2018 Democracy in Crisis". Freedom House. Retrieved 4 October 2018.
205. Frum, David (November 2018). "The Republican Party Needs to Embrace Liberalism". Atlantic. Retrieved 4 October 2018.
206. Yun Ru Phua. "After Every Winter Comes Spring: Tunisia's Democratic Flowering – Berkeley Political Review". Bpr.berkeley.edu. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
207. "Middle East review of 2012: the Arab Winter". The Telegraph. Retrieved 19 July 2014.
208. "Analysis: Arab Winter is coming to Baghdad". The Telegraph. The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 8 October 2014.
209. "Expert Warns of America's Coming 'Arab Winter'". CBN. Retrieved 8 October 2014.
210. "The Arab Winter". The New Yorker. Retrieved 8 October 2014.
211. "Arab Spring or Arab Winter?". The New Yorker. Retrieved 8 October 2014.
212. Bhagavan, Manu. "We are witnessing the rise of global authoritarianism on a chilling scale". Qz.com. Retrieved 4 October 2018.
213. Cowen, Tyler (April 3, 2017). "China's Success Explains Authoritarianism's Allure". Bloomberg. Retrieved 4 October 2018.
214. Cowen, Tyler (4 April 2017). "Why is authoritarianism on the rise?". marginalrevolution.com. Retrieved 4 October 2018.
215. "Can it Happen Here? review: urgent studies in rise of authoritarian America (Review of Cass Sunstein book Can It Happen Here?: Authoritarianism in America)". The Guardian. 8 April 2018. Retrieved 4 October 2018.

Works cited

• Linz, Juan J. (1964). "An Authoritarian Regime: The Case of Spain". In Allard, Eric; Littunen, Yrjo. Cleavages, Ideologies and Party Systems. Helsinki: Academic Bookstore.

Further reading

• Frantz; Erica; Geddes, Barbara; Wrights, Joseph (2018). How Dictatorships Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316336182.

External links