Autocracy

Autocracy is a system of government in which supreme political power to direct all the activities of the state is concentrated in the hands of one person, whose decisions are subject to neither external legal restraints nor regularized mechanisms of popular control (except perhaps for the implicit threat of coup d'etat or mass insurrection).[1]

In earlier times, the term autocrat was coined as a favorable feature of the ruler, having some connection to the concept of "lack of conflicts of interests" as well as an indication of grandeur and power. The Russian Emperor was styled "Autocrat of all the Russias" as late as the early 20th century.

History and etymology

Autocracy comes from the Ancient Greek autós ("self") and krátos ("power", "strength") from Kratos, the Greek personification of authority. In the Medieval Greek language, the term Autocrates was used for anyone holding the title emperor, regardless of the actual power of the monarch. Some historical Slavic monarchs such as Russian tsars and emperors included the title Autocrat as part of their official styles, distinguishing them from the constitutional monarchs elsewhere in Europe. This is not to be confused with the use of auto- as in automatic or automobile, to refer to the lack of need for human rule or power at all instead of power by one.

Comparison with other forms of government

Both totalitarian and military dictatorship are often identified with, but need not be, an autocracy. Totalitarianism is a system where the state strives to control every aspect of life and civil society.[2] It can be headed by a supreme leader, making it autocratic, but it can also have a collective leadership such as a commune, military junta, or a single political party as in the case of a one-party state.

In an analysis of militarized disputes between two states, if one of the states involved was an autocracy the chance of violence occurring doubled.[3]

Origin and developments

Examples from early modern Europe suggests early statehood was favorable for democracy.[4] According to Jacob Hariri, outside Europe, history shows that early statehood has led to autocracy.[5] The reasons he gives are continuation of the original autocratic rule and absence of "institutional transplantation" or European settlement.[5] This may be because of the country's capacity to fight colonization, or the presence of state infrastructure that Europeans did not need for the creation of new institutions to rule. In all the cases, representative institutions were unable to get introduced in these countries and they sustained their autocratic rule. European colonization was varied and conditional on many factors. Countries which were rich in natural resources had an extractive^[?] and indirect rule whereas other colonies saw European settlement.[6] Because of this settlement, these countries possibly experienced setting up of new institutions. Colonization also depended on factor endowments and settler mortality.[5]

Mancur Olson theorizes the development of autocracies as the first transition from anarchy to state. For Olson, anarchy is characterized by a number of "roving bandits" who travel around many different geographic areas extorting wealth from local populations leaving little incentive for populations to invest and produce. As local populations lose the incentive to produce, there is little wealth for either the bandits to steal or the people to use. Olson theorizes autocrats as "stationary bandits" who solve this dilemma by establishing control over a small fiefdom and monopolize the extortion of wealth in the fiefdom in the form of taxes. Once an autocracy is developed, Olson theorizes that both the autocrat and the local population will be better off as the autocrat will have an "encompassing interest" in the maintenance and growth of wealth in the fiefdom. Because violence threatens the creation of rents, the "stationary bandit" has incentives to monopolize violence and to create a peaceful order.[7]

Douglass North, John Joseph Wallis and Barry R. Weingast describe autocracies as limited access orders that arise from this need to monopolize violence. In contrast to Olson, these scholars understand the early state not as a single ruler, but as an organization formed by many actors. They describe the process of autocratic state formation as a bargaining process among individuals with access to violence. For them, these individuals form a dominant coalition that grants each other privileges such as the access to resources. As violence reduces the rents, members of the dominant coalition have incentives to cooperate and to avoid fighting. A limited access to privileges is necessary to avoid competition among the members of the dominant coalition, who then will credibly commit to cooperate and will form the state.[8]

Maintenance

Because autocrats need a power structure to rule, it can be difficult to draw a clear line between historical autocracies and oligarchies. Most historical autocrats depended on their nobles, the military, the priesthood, or other elite groups.[9] Some autocracies are rationalized by assertion of divine right; historically this has mainly been reserved for medieval kingdoms.

According to Douglass North, John Joseph Wallis and Barry R. Weingast, in limited access orders the state is ruled by a dominant coalition formed by a small elite group that relates to each other by personal relationships. In order to remain in power, this elite hinders people outside the dominant coalition to access organizations and resources. Autocracy is maintained as long as the personal relationships of the elite continue to forge the dominant coalition. These scholars further suggest that once the dominant coalition starts to become broader and allow for impersonal relationships, limited access orders can give place to open access orders.[8]

For Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James Robinson, the allocation of political power explains the maintenance of autocracies which they usually refer to as "extractive states".[10] For them, the de jure political power comes from political institutions, whereas the de facto political power is determined by the distribution of resources. Those holding the political power in the present will design the political and economic institutions in the future according to their interests. In autocracies, both de jure and de facto political powers are concentrated in one person or a small elite that will promote institutions for keeping the de jure political power as concentrated as the de facto political power, thereby maintaining autocratic regimes with extractive institutions.

Autocracy promotion

It has been argued that authoritarian regimes such as China and Russia and totalitarian states such as North Korea have attempted to export their system of government to other countries through "autocracy promotion".[11] A number of scholars are skeptical that China and Russia have successfully exported authoritarianism abroad.[12][13][14][15]

Historical examples

Urho Kekkonen (1900–1986), the 8th President of the Republic of Finland, has been perceived as an autocrat during his more than 25-year presidency (1956–1982),[16][17] with some who viewed him most negatively saying he was the closest Finland's presidents in history to a dictator.[18]

• Roman Empire, when Augustus founded the Roman Empire following the end of the Roman Republic in 27 BC. Augustus officially kept the Roman Senate while effectively consolidating all of the real power in himself. Rome was generally peaceful and prosperous until the imperial rule of Commodus starting in 180 AD. The crisis of the Third Century saw the Barbarian invasions and insurrections by prominent generals as well as economic decline. Both Diocletian and Constantine the Great ruled as autocratic leaders, strengthening the control of the emperor in a phase known as Dominate. The empire grew extremely large and was ruled by a tetrarchy, instituted by Diocletian. Eventually, it was split into two halves, namely the Western and the Eastern. The Western Roman Empire fell in 476 after civic unrest, further economic decline and invasions led to the surrender of Romulus Augustus to Odoacer, a German king.[19](subscription required) On the other hand, the Eastern Roman Empire survived until 1453, with the Fall of Constantinople. Its rulers main titles in Greek were Autocrator and Basileus.
• Eastern Han under Dong Zhuo.[20]
• Aztec Empire, where the Mesoamerican Aztecs were a tremendous military powerhouse that earned a fearsome reputation of capturing prisoners during battle to be used for sacrificial rituals. The priesthood supported a pantheon that demanded human sacrifice and the nobility consisted mainly of warriors who had captured many prisoners for these sacrificial rites. The Aztec Emperor hence functioned both as the sole ruler of the empire and its military forces and as the religious figurehead behind the empire's aggressive foreign policy.
• Tsarist and Imperial Russia under Tsar Ivan the Terrible. Shortly after being crowned as ruler, Ivan IV immediately removed his political enemies by execution or exile and established dominance over the Russian empire, expanding the borders of his kingdom dramatically. To enforce his rule, Ivan established the Streltzy as Russia's standing army and developed two cavalry divisions that were fiercely loyal to the Tsar. He also established the Cossacks and the Oprichniki. In his later years, Ivan made orders for his forces to sack the city of Novgorod in fear of being overthrown. The ideology Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality was introduced by Emperor Nicholas I of Russia.
• Tokugawa shogunate, where medieval Japan was caught in a vicious series of conflicts between warring clans, states, and rulers, all of them vying for power. While many of these lords struggled against each other openly, Tokugawa Ieyasu seized mastery of all of Japan through a mix of superior tactics and cunning diplomacy, until he became the dominant power of the land. By establishing his shogunate as the sole ruling power in Japan, Tokugawa and his successors controlled all aspects of life, closing the borders of Japan to all foreign nations and ruling with a policy of isolationism known as Sakoku.
• Denmark–Norway under the House of Oldenburg.
• French Republic and the French Empire from 1799 to 1814 under Napoleon Bonaparte.
• United States, where the President of the United States as chief executive of the Department of the Interior which oversaw relations between the U.S. and sovereign Native American nations through the Office of Indian Affairs was widely regarded as autocratic. The U.S. government imposed complete control over the citizens of Native nations whose nations had entered into treaties with the U.S. This was especially true in the second half of the 19th century when U.S. policy was to acquire territory from Native nations and then remove that nation's population to the Indian Territory and confine them there.[21] The confined population retained the citizenship of their Native nation and were not eligible for American citizenship because they were considered "Indians not taxed" under Article One of the United States Constitution. Unable to acquire U.S. citizenship, this meant that the confined population had no civil rights because they were not recognized as "persons" under American law. This deprived them of all means of legal redress to challenge the autocratic rule of the U.S. government imposed over every aspect of their lives. Native Americans were specifically excluded from the grant of universal citizenship following the abolition of slavery under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1868. It was not until 1879 that the first Native American was recognized as a "person" in the landmark civil rights case Standing Bear v. Crook. In the Standing Bear case, 29 citizens of the Ponca Nation led by Standing Bear were required to renounce their Ponca citizenship just to acquire the basic constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness following the illegal forced removal of the Ponca to the Indian Territory in 1877 by the U.S. government in violation of the Ponca Treaty of 1865. Public opinion following the Standing Bear case led to a push for Native American citizenship with many major U.S. newspapers criticizing the U.S. autocracy. In 1880, the New York Tribune editorialized: "So long as the Indians remain without the protection of the law, we give the lie to our claim to be a republic as much as we did when we permitted slavery. So far as they are concerned, our government is as autocratic today as that of Russia or Persia."[22] Native Americans were not granted universal American citizenship for another 45 years when the Indian Citizenship Act was enacted in 1924. Still, autocratic rule continued. In 1934, Franklin D. Roosevelt recognized his government's autocratic rule over Native Americans, saying the "continuance of autocratic rule by a federal department over the lives of more than 200,000 citizens of this nation is incompatible with American ideals of liberty".[23] Despite Roosevelt's Indian Reorganization Act, autocratic rule continued until the administration of Richard Nixon and the enactment of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975.[24]
• The Soviet Union under the reign of Joseph Stalin in addition to other Soviet dictators. Following the Russian civil war 1917 - 1922 the Soviet union was established, under the rule of first Vladimir Lenin then Joseph Stalin the Soviet union implemented a region of autocratic terror over the Soviet union. Implementing among such actions the 1932 - 1933 Ukrainian famine and the great purge of 1936 - 1938. Widespread political repression and genocide occurred up until the death in 1953 of Joseph Stalin when the political repression and genocide eased off however continued until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.[25]
• Fascist Italy under Benito Mussolini's rule starting from 1925.
• Empire of Japan under Hirohito.
• Nazi Germany ruled by Adolf Hitler.[2] After the failed Beer Hall Putsch, the Nazi Party began a more subtle political strategy to take over the government. Following a tense social and political environment in the 1930s, the Nazis under Hitler took advantage of the civil unrest of the state to seize power through cunning propaganda and by the charismatic speeches of their party leader. By the time Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany, the Nazi Party began to restrict civil liberties on the public following the Reichstag Fire. With a combination of cooperation and intimidation, Hitler and his party systematically weakened all opposition to his rule, transforming the Weimar Republic into a dictatorship where Hitler alone spoke and acted on behalf of Germany. Nazi Germany is an example of an autocracy run primarily by a single leader and his party.
• Spanish State, ruled by Francisco Franco.
• The Hungarian People's Republic as a member of the Soviet-aligned Eastern Bloc.
• Paraguay under the government of Alfredo Stroessner.
• Chile under the dictatorship of Pinochet.

See also

• Absolute monarchy
• Anocracy
• Autarchism
• Authoritarianism
• Centralisation
• Despotism
• Dictatorship
• Führerprinzip
• Monarchy
• Oligarchy
• Theocracy
• Tsarist autocracy
• Tyranny

References

1. Paul M. Johnson. "Autocracy: A Glossary of Political Economy Terms". Auburn.edu. Retrieved 2012-09-14.
2. Hague, Rod; Harrop, Martin; McCormick, John (2016). Comparative government and politics : an introduction (Tenth ed.). London: Palgrave. ISBN 978-1-137-52836-0.
3. Pinker, Steven (2011). The Better Angels Of Our Nature. Penguin. p. 341. ISBN 978-0-141-03464-5.
4. Tilly, Charles. "Western-state Making and Theories of Political Transformation". Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
5. Hariri, Jacob (2012). "The Autocratic Legacy of Early Statehood" (PDF). American Political Science Review. 106 (3): 471–494. doi:10.1017/S0003055412000238.
6. Acemoglu, Daron; Johnson, Simon; A. Robinson, James. "Reversal of Fortune: Geography and Institutions in the Making of the Modern World Income Distribution".
7. Olson, Mancur (1993-01-01). "Dictatorship, Democracy, and Development". The American Political Science Review. 87 (3): 567–576. doi:10.2307/2938736. JSTOR 2938736.
8. Douglass C. North; John Joseph Wallis; Barry R. Weingast (2008). "Violence and the Rise of Open-Access Orders". Journal of Democracy. 20 (1): 55–68. doi:10.1353/jod.0.0060.
9. Tullock, Gordon. "Autocracy", Springer Science+Business, 1987. ISBN 90-247-3398-7.
10. Acemoglu, Daron; Johnson, Simon; Robinson, James A. (2005). Chapter 6 Institutions as a Fundamental Cause of Long-Run Growth. Handbook of Economic Growth. 1, Part A. pp. 385–472. doi:10.1016/S1574-0684(05)01006-3. ISBN 9780444520418.
11. Kurlantzick, Joshua (2013-03-30). "A New Axis of Autocracy". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2017-05-17.
12. Tansey, Oisín (2016-01-02). "The problem with autocracy promotion". Democratization. 23 (1): 141–163. doi:10.1080/13510347.2015.1095736. ISSN 1351-0347.
13. Way, Lucan (2016-01-27). "Weaknesses of Autocracy Promotion". Journal of Democracy. 27 (1): 64–75. doi:10.1353/jod.2016.0009. ISSN 1086-3214.
14. Brownlee, Jason (2017-05-15). "The limited reach of authoritarian powers". Democratization. 0 (7): 1326–1344. doi:10.1080/13510347.2017.1287175. ISSN 1351-0347.
15. Way, Lucan A. (2015). "The limits of autocracy promotion: The case of Russia in the 'near abroad'". European Journal of Political Research. 54 (4): 691–706. doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12092.
16. Kekkonen, Urho. Kansallisbiografia (English edition). (The section "The rise to the position of 'autocrat'")
17. D. Strijker, G. Voerman & I. J. Terluin: Rural Protest Groups and Populist Political Parties. Wageningen Academic Pub, 2015. ISBN 978-9086862597.
18. The Dictator Is the Last to Know
19. "Password Logon Page". ic.galegroup.com. Retrieved 2016-04-10.
20. de Crespigny, Rafe (2017). Fire over Luoyang: A History of the Later Han Dynasty 23-220 AD. Leiden: Brill. pp. 449–459. ISBN 9789004324916.
21. Stuart, Paul (1978). The Indian Office. Research Press. p. 15. ISBN 0-8357-1079-3.
22. "Bottom Facts of the Indian Matter". The New York Tribune. 1880. p. 6.
23. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Indian Affairs (1934). Readjustment of Indian Affairs. Washington, D.C. p. 233.
24. Nixon, Richard (1974). President Nixon Sets New Indian Policies and Goals. U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 9. For its part, the Federal Government must put behind it the role of autocratic manager of Indian reservations
25. "Memory of political repression in post-Soviet Russia: the example of the Gulag | Sciences Po Mass Violence and Resistance - Research Network". memory-political-repression-post-soviet-russia-example-gulag.html. 2019-04-16. Retrieved 2020-07-26.

External links

• Felix Bethke: "Research on Autocratic Regimes: Divide et Impera'", Katapult-Magazine (2015-03-15)