How do modern authoritarian states gain support from policies and what do they aim to achieve?
This series of lessons explain how in general authoritarian regimes come to power, consolidate power and use that power. You will find these lectures and associated reading the most challenging things you have done this year. This page atempts to examine the sorts of policies authoritarian states and implement and how and why these might vary from one regime to the next. More detail can be found in three case studies below:
|
Having got into power, what does an authoritarian regime do next?
So far, the focus has been on the authoritarian state exercising power: ‘formal’ control through coercion and force and ‘informal’ control through persuasion and propaganda. But what about when the authoritarian regime doesn’t exercise power against the public, but rather is empowered by the public to act of their behalf? This is called the consent of the governed, and as we saw earlier, it constitutes one of the three ways through which the state maintains its control over the individual. It is therefore very important when evaluating the reasons why the authoritarian state is able to maintain power that in addition to coercion and persuasion students also consider the reasons why some people may have supported the regime |
Consent in authoritarian regimes
So why would any citizen support a dictatorship? The reasons are varied, but all come down to incentives. For example, the incentives might be financial, because people feel they are better off with an authoritarian regime that is able to force though needed economic reform. Or there might be security incentives, where people feel that an authoritarian regime is best suited to guaranteeing peace and stability in a country that has experienced (or might experience) civil unrest. A citizen’s support for a regime (consent) can be both explicit and implicit. Explicit consent means that citizens actively support the regime through social and political participation. Implicit consent suggests a more passive role, in which citizens ‘put-up’ with the regime or lack the will to actively oppose the regime. If the regime is to be long-lasting consent in either form or both, is essential.
So why would any citizen support a dictatorship? The reasons are varied, but all come down to incentives. For example, the incentives might be financial, because people feel they are better off with an authoritarian regime that is able to force though needed economic reform. Or there might be security incentives, where people feel that an authoritarian regime is best suited to guaranteeing peace and stability in a country that has experienced (or might experience) civil unrest. A citizen’s support for a regime (consent) can be both explicit and implicit. Explicit consent means that citizens actively support the regime through social and political participation. Implicit consent suggests a more passive role, in which citizens ‘put-up’ with the regime or lack the will to actively oppose the regime. If the regime is to be long-lasting consent in either form or both, is essential.
|
Explicit consent
Explicit consent can be generated in four ways:
|
3. Social mobility - A related means of generating explicit consent in an authoritarian regime, as in all regimes, is through encouraging social mobility. The successful authoritarian state must provide a degree of social mobility in which the powerless can move up into positions of responsibility, in return for their loyalty and support of the regime.
4. Ideological commitment. Finally, we must consider the importance of ideological incentive. These are not people who are passive victims of propaganda and indoctrination, but genuine believers.
4. Ideological commitment. Finally, we must consider the importance of ideological incentive. These are not people who are passive victims of propaganda and indoctrination, but genuine believers.
Implicit consent
We can identify three different types of passive or implicit consent: the apathetic, the materialist and the conformist. The most important reason why people accept authoritarian regimes is political ignorance and apathy. The second reason why people accept authoritarian government is because the regime is materially benefitting their lives. Some authoritarian regimes successfully address the social and political problems that brought them to power. A final way of explaining implicit consent requires a reference to sociology and social psychology. Social conformity results in individuals being reluctant to act or express views that are not consistent with group norms. The tendency to conform might be influenced by subtle, unconscious adoption of dominant group behaviour or by overt social and political pressure brought about by the regime itself. |
Conformity ‘Conformity can be defined as yielding to group pressures, something which nearly all of us do some of the time. Suppose, for example, you go with friends to see a film. You didn't think the film was very good, but all your friends thought that it was absolutely brilliant. You might be tempted to conform by pretending to agree with their verdict on the film rather than being the odd one out.’ (Eysenck, Psychology: An International Perspective, 2004) |
|
Economic Policies
As we saw earlier, economic factors are often fundamental causes in the rise of authoritarianism, because they help accentuate or trigger other causes such as underlying social or ethnic divisions. Consequently, resolving the economic problems which gave rise to the authoritarian state, is often a policy priority and an essential basis for generating levels of support amongst the public. Right-wing authoritarian regimes will be sympathetic to the private big business community. Their rise to power may well have been supported and funded by wealthy business elites who hope for policies that weaken organized labour and the influence of socialist parties. |
In contrast, the central strand of any socialist economic programme is the goal of creating an economic system based on the social ownership or control, of most, if not all, the key wealth producing industries in a state. As early as in 1848 Marx and Engels wrote in the Communist Manifesto goals that included, ‘Abolition of property in land’, ‘Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State’ and ‘Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State’.
Social Policies
Social policies are deliberate attempts by a government to manage or solve perceived societal problems. Many social policies are influenced by economics and attempt to resolve social problems that have an economic root. For example, social welfare policies attempt to deal with unemployment, poor housing or lack of access to health care. Another example of social policies concerns religious groups. Religion poses a problem for authoritarian states because they provide their members with an alternative set of loyalties, some of which may be potentially conflicting. Social policies may attempt to neutralise the importance of religious groups or co-opt them, by providing them with a privileged position in the state. (e.g. Mussolini's three Lateran Agreements with the Catholic Church)
One of the most important social policies for any modern state concerns the education of the young. Improving general access to education and raising literacy rates, were key social policies for authoritarian states, both right-wing and left-wing, throughout the 20th century. But also, state education potentially provides two distinctive forms of social control: in school through the curriculum - both through the academic and ‘hidden’ curricula - but also outside school, through extracurricular organisations.
Social policies are deliberate attempts by a government to manage or solve perceived societal problems. Many social policies are influenced by economics and attempt to resolve social problems that have an economic root. For example, social welfare policies attempt to deal with unemployment, poor housing or lack of access to health care. Another example of social policies concerns religious groups. Religion poses a problem for authoritarian states because they provide their members with an alternative set of loyalties, some of which may be potentially conflicting. Social policies may attempt to neutralise the importance of religious groups or co-opt them, by providing them with a privileged position in the state. (e.g. Mussolini's three Lateran Agreements with the Catholic Church)
One of the most important social policies for any modern state concerns the education of the young. Improving general access to education and raising literacy rates, were key social policies for authoritarian states, both right-wing and left-wing, throughout the 20th century. But also, state education potentially provides two distinctive forms of social control: in school through the curriculum - both through the academic and ‘hidden’ curricula - but also outside school, through extracurricular organisations.
Children could be controlled by the state during the day in school, but in the evening they could be ‘corrupted’ by the influence of their parents. Totalitarian youth movements were therefore also intended to break down familial and cross-generational ties and to inculcate loyalty to the state above that of the family. In Stalin’s USSR, the example of Pavlik Morozov a thirteen year old Pioneer who was murdered after denouncing his father, became a morality tale. According to historian Orlando Figes, ‘ the idea was sown in millions of minds that snitching on one's friends and relatives was not shameful but public-spirited. Orwell made this point dramatically in 1984 when the loyal party member Parsons was denounced by his seven year old daughter for thoughtcrime, crying out 'I hate Big Brother' in his sleep. (right and Russia in 2023)
|
|
Distinctive policies for women are the final example of social policies that often concern authoritarian states. Left-wing political theory has long had a feminist dimension that explains women’s subordination as an inevitable characteristic of capitalism. The domestic ‘reproductive labour’ of women as mothers and housekeepers is seen as an essential, but unrecognised and unpaid means of keeping production costs down. As such the question of female emancipation was very much tied up to the proposed radical reorganisation of the economy. Right-wing authoritarianism, in contrast, set out to resist the progress that women had made in the early 20th century. They harked back to the dominant 19th century view that society was naturally composed of ‘separate spheres’; a domestic or private sphere for women and a public or social sphere for men.
Cultural Policies
We must finish once and for all with the neutrality of chess. We must condemn once and for all the formula “chess for the sake of chess”, like the formula “art for art’s sake”. We must organise shock brigades of chess-players, and begin immediate realisation of a Five-Year Plan for chess.
Nikolai Krylenko, Head of the Soviet Chess Association.
We must finish once and for all with the neutrality of chess. We must condemn once and for all the formula “chess for the sake of chess”, like the formula “art for art’s sake”. We must organise shock brigades of chess-players, and begin immediate realisation of a Five-Year Plan for chess.
Nikolai Krylenko, Head of the Soviet Chess Association.
High Art - One of the key features of a totalitarian state that distinguishes it from a mere authoritarian regime, is the need for public mobilisation in support of its ideas. It is not enough to censor culture that might have a negative impact; culture must positively engage the masses, emotionally moving them and promoting an aesthetic that fulfils the ideological goals of the movement. The state’s ability to fund and support the arts, to circumvent market economies that in capitalist democracies denied the masses access to culture, had significant consequences. Like the limitless time and resources invested by the medieval Catholic Church to glorify itself through magnificent gothic cathedrals, so Stalin’s USSR could produce the Moscow Metro to standards that surpassed both the technical and aesthetic limitations of those in capitalist states.
|
|
Popular culture - Two of the most notable film makers of the 20th Century, Sergei Eisenstein in the USSR and Leni Riefenstahl in Nazi Germany, contributed to the art of filmmaking in ways that are still admired today. See right for the influence of Riefenstahl on George Lucas. (For more see extension materials at the bottom of this page.) Both directors benefitted from the virtually limitless resources of the state for film production and exhibition. Most of the domestically produced films in both regimes were actually light entertainment and romantic comedies. Only 9% of films made in the USSR between 1939 and 1940 were ideologically set in factories and collective farms. In Germany, only 14% of over 1000 films made were overt propaganda. The political goal in general was evasion, not ideological conversion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leisure - In the place of trade unions, the authoritarian state took the initiative - often at a factory level - of encouraging the workforce into useful leisure. Of course, the most useful leisure is extra work. Encouraging factories into ‘after work’ competitions was a good way of achieving this. The Stakhanovite ‘shock worker’ movement in the USSR targeted the most ambitious workers and rewarded them with better canteens, housing and, in some instances, fame. In Germany, Labour Front (DAF) organised workers into ‘skill Olympics’; competitions to test the skills of artisans, which by 1939 involved 3.5 million workers. The KDF ‘Strength Through Joy’ organization, modelled on the Italian fascist organization Dopolavoro (After Work), began the first modern package holidays for workers (Prora - below left) and cruise liners like the Robert Ley.
Foreign Policies
The von Clausewitz aphorism that ‘war is the continuation of politics by other means’, is certainly more applicable to authoritarian states than democracies. In his 1795 essay, ‘Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch’ the philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that accountable governments will not go to war against each other, because neither state will vote to make the necessary sacrifices. The political scientist Rudolph Rummel has calculated that 353 pairs of nations fought wars between 1816-1991 and not one war was between two democracies. In contrast, authoritarian regimes are more likely to use war or the threat of war as an instrument of foreign policy. As we have seen, authoritarian states are inherently more militaristic, and the army is likely to play a central role in society. But most importantly, the lack of democratic accountability and the absence of a free press, mean that authoritarian states can act abroad with relative impunity, unconcerned about domestic opinion.
The von Clausewitz aphorism that ‘war is the continuation of politics by other means’, is certainly more applicable to authoritarian states than democracies. In his 1795 essay, ‘Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch’ the philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that accountable governments will not go to war against each other, because neither state will vote to make the necessary sacrifices. The political scientist Rudolph Rummel has calculated that 353 pairs of nations fought wars between 1816-1991 and not one war was between two democracies. In contrast, authoritarian regimes are more likely to use war or the threat of war as an instrument of foreign policy. As we have seen, authoritarian states are inherently more militaristic, and the army is likely to play a central role in society. But most importantly, the lack of democratic accountability and the absence of a free press, mean that authoritarian states can act abroad with relative impunity, unconcerned about domestic opinion.
Authoritarian states can also use militarism and war to help advance domestic policy goals. Hitler’s rearmament programme in the 1930s was designed to prepare for war but also to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment. Mussolini’s African imperialism helped overcome the imperial frustrations that had bitterly divided Italy after World War I. At the most basic level, international success plays well domestically and can help an authoritarian regime consolidate and maintain power. War can even be manufactured as a way of distracting the public from domestic concerns. A so called ‘diversionary war’ is fought to provide the state with a rallying point to unite the nation, ‘rally ‘round the flag syndrome’ and a justification to suppress any ongoing internal dissent.
|
|
Concusion on authoritarianism and the extent to which control is achieved.
For more see Kognity
|
The last section of the syllabus is concerned with the extent to which authoritarian states are able to control individuals and social groups. It doesn't really fit where the IB have put it in the syllabus, so I have made a standalone film to help you get to grips with what is a popular examination question. An authoritarian state that exercises most control is a totalitarian state. There are four characteristics that distinguish totalitarianism:
|
Activities
Explain, with examples, the difference between explicit and implicit consent.
Describe through examples how policies in authoritarian regimes can help win help win popular support (generate consent).
Referring to at least two examples, show how policies can have different goals and results in right-wing and left-wing authoritarian regimes.
Extension
Like me, a lot of students are interested in film. The following two films provide a very interesting starting point into the role of film-makers in authoritarian states. Film is one of those rare areas of creative endeavour in which propaganda can also produce high quality art, for similar reasons architecture is another.
Explain, with examples, the difference between explicit and implicit consent.
Describe through examples how policies in authoritarian regimes can help win help win popular support (generate consent).
Referring to at least two examples, show how policies can have different goals and results in right-wing and left-wing authoritarian regimes.
Extension
Like me, a lot of students are interested in film. The following two films provide a very interesting starting point into the role of film-makers in authoritarian states. Film is one of those rare areas of creative endeavour in which propaganda can also produce high quality art, for similar reasons architecture is another.
|
|
|
Georges Steiner on Riefenstahl is one of the most amazing films of an intellectual talking on camera and one of the first of my edits that I put on YouTube. The technical quality is awful but I've never seen the film anywhere since and I don't have the VHS cassette I recorded it on.
Hopefully someone will upload a decent one in the future. Late Show Special - BBC Two - Fri 18th Dec 1992, 23:20. An exploration of the ideas behind the making of Leni Riefenstahl 's controversial film, Triumph of the Will. Director Martin Davidson Riefenstahl on herself is a fascinating watch. Most interesting is her description of the resources she had available to make the films. This explains how authoritarian states could produce genuine high quality art. Massively controversial. This recent piece in the Guardian shares the story of one woman's campaign against Riefenstahl's attempts to distance herself from the crimes of the Nazis. |