The emergence of authoritarian states
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 explain the generic reasons behind the rise to power of an authoritarian state, more detail can be found in three case studies below:
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 explain the generic reasons behind the rise to power of an authoritarian state, more detail can be found in three case studies below:
“History is the record of an encounter between character and circumstances.” — Donald Creighton, Canadian historian (1902-79).
The IB syllabus distinguishes between the conditions that give rise to authoritarianism and methods used by those would be authoritarians seeking power. A more satisfactory (sociological) distinction can be made for the emergence of authoritarian states in dividing between between structural factors and the role of human agency.
The IB syllabus distinguishes between the conditions that give rise to authoritarianism and methods used by those would be authoritarians seeking power. A more satisfactory (sociological) distinction can be made for the emergence of authoritarian states in dividing between between structural factors and the role of human agency.
|
|
|
Structural Factors
Structural factors refer to the context that makes the rise to power of an authoritarian state more likely. Put simply, authoritarian regimes are unusual in countries that are rich, socially stable and that have a tradition of constitutionally limited, civilian government. If they do emerge in these sorts of countries, it is usually the result of a crisis situation, brought about by external factors such as war or international economic crisis. As usual with history, PESC (+) is a good way to go about organising the structural factors.
Structural factors refer to the context that makes the rise to power of an authoritarian state more likely. Put simply, authoritarian regimes are unusual in countries that are rich, socially stable and that have a tradition of constitutionally limited, civilian government. If they do emerge in these sorts of countries, it is usually the result of a crisis situation, brought about by external factors such as war or international economic crisis. As usual with history, PESC (+) is a good way to go about organising the structural factors.
Political factors that contribute to the rise of authoritarian regimes are concerned with governance and power. A state that is failing politically to control its territory is in danger of being overthrown. If in addition a country has little or no tradition of constitutional government or if democratic government has been discredited by an inability to govern effectively, then it is more likely that authoritarian regimes will come to power. When the public lose confidence in the state to this extent, it is said to be suffering a legitimation crisis.
Legitimation crisis refers to a decline in the confidence of state institutions or leadership. People no longer feel that the state is capable doing what it is supposed to do: to protect and respect the interests of the citizens. As a consequence, the state loses is authority. The term was first introduced in 1973 by Jürgen Habermas, a German sociologist and philosopher.
In the example of the Provisional Government in Russia in 1917 we have one of the best examples of a failed state. It not only lacked the legitimacy that might have been derived from popular election, it was also forced to share its authority with workers’ and soldiers’ councils (soviets) which did enjoy popular support and which under the leadership of the Bolsheviks brought the provisional state formation of Russia to an ignominious end in October 1917. What is essential to building a sustainable democracy is not so much a democratic tradition, but rather the mere existence of reliable governmental institutions themselves.
|
The rise to power of most authoritarian regimes occurs in states where state institutions are poorly developed, little respected and prone to corruption i.e. where they are becoming failed states.
Economic factors are concerned with the wealth of a country and how it makes and distributes that wealth. Unlike political factors which are often specific to an individual country, economic causes of authoritarianism are often as international as the economic system that connects countries together. The classic example is the Great Depression of the 1930s, which resulted in widespread unemployment and poverty, undermining many of newly democratic regimes that had been created in the aftermath of World War One. |
Failed State The concept of failed state has its origins in the work of the German sociologist Max Weber. In Weber’s famous definition, a state is an organisation which has a ‘monopoly of violence’ within its geographically defined borders: only a state can imprison you and only state officers have the authority to physically restrain you etc. In a failed state, law and order may have broken down and some parts of the territory might be ruled by warlords or paramilitary groups. In a state that is on the way to failing, government may be unable to collect taxes or provide essential services and it may be prone to corruption and high levels of violence. |
Fascism and communism, rival ideologies that emerged at this time, both shared a common belief that the liberal, capitalist democratic state needed to be overthrown, if a new and effective socio-economic system was to be put in place. Economic factors are often fundamental causes in the rise of authoritarianism, because they help accentuate or trigger other causes. Economic crises lead to calls for political change, but additionally, underlying religious or ethnic divisions (see below) can only be contained as long as an economy is growing enough to provide enough people with the essentials of life. Right wing authoritarian leaders may exploit this discontent by offering stability and strong leadership as a solution to economic woes. Economic elites may support authoritarian regimes if they perceive them as protecting their interests, such as maintaining favourable business conditions, suppressing labour movements, or safeguarding their wealth from redistribution. Alternatively, income inequality can lead to feelings of resentment and marginalization among certain segments of the population and corruption can undermine trust in institutions and political processes. Left wing authoritarian leaders may capitalize on this by promising to address inequality and redistribute wealth, promising to root out corruption and establish order, gaining support from those disillusioned with the existing system.
Social Division is concerned with how divisions between groups of people in society make it difficult for the state to peacefully manage a community of competing interests. Social division comes in many forms: class, religious, ethnic, tribal, national, linguistic, gender, age etc. Undoubtedly, one of the most important social divisions behind the rise to power of modern authoritarian is class. During the 19th century in Europe, the Industrial Revolution unleashed social and economic forces that ripped apart the fabric of the old order based on the power of the great landowners. The rise of the new industrial working class, with its demands for democratic representation, fundamentally threatened the continuing domination by economic, social and political elites. The reluctant political reform and gradual extension of the franchise before the First World War, were attempts to stave off the revolutionary demands of socialists, anarchists and Marxist revolutionaries for radical change. The authoritarian regimes that emerged out of the war were either authoritarian states claiming to be representing the interests of working class against the old elites or authoritarian states that protected the interests of old elites against the revolutionary demands of the working class. The former were generally communist and the latter varieties of fascist.
Cultural factors that contribute to the rise to power of an authoritarian regime are concerned less with the measurable, material influence of socio-economic factors and more with the less tangible spiritual and intellectual lives of people; their beliefs, thoughts and expectations. Factors such as political motivation and religious belief are important when considering the cultural context that favours or impedes the creation of an authoritarian state.
Social Division is concerned with how divisions between groups of people in society make it difficult for the state to peacefully manage a community of competing interests. Social division comes in many forms: class, religious, ethnic, tribal, national, linguistic, gender, age etc. Undoubtedly, one of the most important social divisions behind the rise to power of modern authoritarian is class. During the 19th century in Europe, the Industrial Revolution unleashed social and economic forces that ripped apart the fabric of the old order based on the power of the great landowners. The rise of the new industrial working class, with its demands for democratic representation, fundamentally threatened the continuing domination by economic, social and political elites. The reluctant political reform and gradual extension of the franchise before the First World War, were attempts to stave off the revolutionary demands of socialists, anarchists and Marxist revolutionaries for radical change. The authoritarian regimes that emerged out of the war were either authoritarian states claiming to be representing the interests of working class against the old elites or authoritarian states that protected the interests of old elites against the revolutionary demands of the working class. The former were generally communist and the latter varieties of fascist.
Cultural factors that contribute to the rise to power of an authoritarian regime are concerned less with the measurable, material influence of socio-economic factors and more with the less tangible spiritual and intellectual lives of people; their beliefs, thoughts and expectations. Factors such as political motivation and religious belief are important when considering the cultural context that favours or impedes the creation of an authoritarian state.
The concept of political culture is useful in helping to understand the cultural conditions in which authoritarian regimes are more likely to come to power. Societies where the political culture is ‘Parochial’ such as large parts of decolonised Africa in the early 1960s or where the political culture is ‘Subject’ such as in Russia in 1916, are particularly prone to authoritarian rule. In contrast, in societies where there is a strong ‘Participant’ political culture it is more difficult to impose authoritarian rule.
|
Impact of war is often central to the creation of authoritarian states. The First World War was the crucial cause of the first modern authoritarian states. The late 19th and early 20th century had been a time of optimism; a belle epoch which politically had been characterized by the collapse of traditional authoritarian regimes and the rise of liberal democracy.
|
Political Culture Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba in The Civic Culture (1963) outlined three pure types of political culture based on level and type of political participation and the nature of people's attitudes toward politics: • Parochial - Where citizens have neither knowledge nor interest in politics. This type of political culture is expected in traditional, pre-industrial societies. • Subject - Where citizens are aware of central government and are heavily subjected to its decisions with little possibility for participation or dissent. This is typically found in a state with a centralized authoritarian structure. • Participant - Citizens are able to influence the government in various ways and they are affected by it. Typical of a democratic political structure. |
The First World War ended that optimism and gave rise to fascism and communism, two modern totalitarian models that stood as rivals to liberal democracy. The experience of total war was important to the rise of authoritarianism but defeat in war even more so. Of the eleven European states that had remained democracies by the time of the outbreak of the Second World War, all had either been neutral or on the winning side of the First World War. More generally, war is an important condition to the emergence of authoritarian states because it has a tendency to exacerbate the other PESC factors:
● War has an impact on the socio-economic ability of a state to function effectively. Total war in the early 20th century engaged whole societies and economies in ways that had previously been unimaginable. All states in total war struggle to feed, house and protect a civilian population which has been deliberately targeted by enemy military strategy. In addition, wartime and post-war economies struggle to adapt to changed demands, economic dislocation results in unemployment or shortages in consumer goods. It is hard to maintain the consent of the governed, if the state is unable to provide what it is supposed to provide.
● War has an impact of the political system itself. In brief, all states that fight wars have to become more authoritarian if they are to win. Even the most liberal democracy has to centralise control over the economy, society and culture: it nationalises industry, conscripts civilians and controls the media in ways that would be unacceptable in peacetime.
● The experience of war changes human beings and in a total war this can mean almost the whole of society is subject to transformation. For democracy to be effective there must be a culture of toleration, compromise and open rational debate; a peaceful social interaction that revolves around the participation of individuals who respect each other’s human rights. War produces just the opposite condition. War needs individuals subsumed to the interests of the group: the nation and the fatherland. It is the emotions of patriotism and hatred of the other, not reason and empathy that are the most welcome characteristics. And for those who actually do the fighting and the killing, there are the long-term effects of social alienation, dehumanization and comradeship which can make it very difficult to re-adjust to peacetime conditions and civilian authority.
Finally, we need to acknowledge the simple fact that authoritarian states are regularly created in the aftermath of wars, civil wars and coup d'états, where the role of the military has been essential to the successful creation of an authoritarian regime. The existence of a sympathetic section of the army or a well-armed civilian population is often essential to the revolutionary capture of a state and this militarised state is most commonly found in time of war. When the new regime is established it will naturally retain some of the characteristics of its foundation: militaristic cultural values such as loyalty and discipline, a respect for military authority and military leaders reluctant to hand over authority to civilian leaders.
● War has an impact on the socio-economic ability of a state to function effectively. Total war in the early 20th century engaged whole societies and economies in ways that had previously been unimaginable. All states in total war struggle to feed, house and protect a civilian population which has been deliberately targeted by enemy military strategy. In addition, wartime and post-war economies struggle to adapt to changed demands, economic dislocation results in unemployment or shortages in consumer goods. It is hard to maintain the consent of the governed, if the state is unable to provide what it is supposed to provide.
● War has an impact of the political system itself. In brief, all states that fight wars have to become more authoritarian if they are to win. Even the most liberal democracy has to centralise control over the economy, society and culture: it nationalises industry, conscripts civilians and controls the media in ways that would be unacceptable in peacetime.
● The experience of war changes human beings and in a total war this can mean almost the whole of society is subject to transformation. For democracy to be effective there must be a culture of toleration, compromise and open rational debate; a peaceful social interaction that revolves around the participation of individuals who respect each other’s human rights. War produces just the opposite condition. War needs individuals subsumed to the interests of the group: the nation and the fatherland. It is the emotions of patriotism and hatred of the other, not reason and empathy that are the most welcome characteristics. And for those who actually do the fighting and the killing, there are the long-term effects of social alienation, dehumanization and comradeship which can make it very difficult to re-adjust to peacetime conditions and civilian authority.
Finally, we need to acknowledge the simple fact that authoritarian states are regularly created in the aftermath of wars, civil wars and coup d'états, where the role of the military has been essential to the successful creation of an authoritarian regime. The existence of a sympathetic section of the army or a well-armed civilian population is often essential to the revolutionary capture of a state and this militarised state is most commonly found in time of war. When the new regime is established it will naturally retain some of the characteristics of its foundation: militaristic cultural values such as loyalty and discipline, a respect for military authority and military leaders reluctant to hand over authority to civilian leaders.
|
It is no coincidence that established authoritarian states continue to perpetuate wars against the ‘enemy within’ as well as external threats from abroad. Kulaks in Russia, Jews in Germany, even the older generation in China in 1966 (another example of social division) provide the state with the justification for the continued war footing that is the essence of authoritarian rule. In George Orwell’s 1984, the main character ‘Winston could not definitely remember a time when his country had not been at war’. In fact, there is a state of perpetual war between the nations of Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia. Perpetual war justifies every citizens sacrifice, every restriction of liberty and every encouragement to hate.
|
|
|
Human Agency
This second theme encourages us to consider the methods employed by the historical participants in order to establish an authoritarian regime. We can use a Shakespearean metaphor to help us make sense of this distinction. If the structural factors are the stage, directions, costumes and script, then agency refers to the performance of the actors on that stage. In brief, a lot, but not everything maybe determined elsewhere, but people, real historical actors can and do make a difference. |
|
|
|
As Marx put it, 'men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living.' The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, 1852
Coercion, persuasion and consent is a model that is again useful here. When an authoritarian regime comes to power through coercion, it means that force has been used against those who oppose regime change. Coercion is employed against opponents of the would-be authoritarian regime, but also to help instil discipline within the group attempting to seize power.
|
The methods used can vary in the level of brutality and it is worth noting that Lenin wrote some of the most sophisticated philosophical work of the 20th century, but he also wrote articles about killing policemen and robbing banks.
|
But if the revolution is to succeed, coercion alone is rarely enough, there needs also to be some support for change. Persuasive methods refer to efforts made to influence public opinion – both elite and popular - in favour of the authoritarian regime. For authoritarian states where ideology is important, notably in the case of single-party states, an extensive propaganda campaign provides essential preparation for the takeover of power. |
Lenin on Street Fighting ‘The preparatory work includes procuring all kinds of arms and ammunition, securing premises favourably located for street fighting (convenient for fighting from above, for storing bombs and stones, etc., or acids to be poured on the police, etc., etc.; also suitable for headquarters, for collecting information, for sheltering fugitives from the police, for use as hospitals, etc., etc.)' 'Tasks of Revolutionary Army Contingents', 1905 |
Quite often the propaganda campaign is conducted in the context of genuine democratic elections in which the authoritarian regime garners significant levels of popular support before going on to gradually seize power. Many people consented to live in authoritarian regimes because of the promise of social justice and economic improvement. Many intellectuals, including some of the greatest historians of the 20th century, fell for what Juan Linz describes as the 'totalitarian temptation'.
Which brings us to the importance of consent. Sometimes neglected but important nonetheless, is the fact that regimes that reject liberal democracy can come to power and maintain that power on the basis of popular will. For example, a context in which personal security cannot be guaranteed or where the food supply is irregular can provide an environment in which stability and security become overwhelming priorities. Consent for authoritarian rule is often provided with the expectation that authoritarianism is a temporary stage or a sacrifice on the way to building a superior form of state. Temporary authoritarian rule is presented as necessary to protect the gains of the revolution, to purge opponents of the revolution or to reform and modernize the economy. In Stalin's USSR this was justified in Marxist terms as the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', in Hitler's Germany it was the building of a 'thousand-year Reich'.
Which brings us to the importance of consent. Sometimes neglected but important nonetheless, is the fact that regimes that reject liberal democracy can come to power and maintain that power on the basis of popular will. For example, a context in which personal security cannot be guaranteed or where the food supply is irregular can provide an environment in which stability and security become overwhelming priorities. Consent for authoritarian rule is often provided with the expectation that authoritarianism is a temporary stage or a sacrifice on the way to building a superior form of state. Temporary authoritarian rule is presented as necessary to protect the gains of the revolution, to purge opponents of the revolution or to reform and modernize the economy. In Stalin's USSR this was justified in Marxist terms as the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', in Hitler's Germany it was the building of a 'thousand-year Reich'.
|
Many social scientists have sought to explain why ordinary people, without having previously been engaged by the political process, become attracted to authoritarian movements. Writing in the 1950s, Theodor W. Adorno and others, applied the techniques of social psychology in an attempt to unearth the personality characteristics of those who might be more susceptible to the appeal of authoritarianism. The book The Authoritarian Personality contains the results of social scientific surveys, questionnaires and interviews. People were graded against the The F- scale (F = fascism) which measured characteristics such a tendency to value conventional ideas, to be superstitious or anti-intellectual. The contemporary rise in authoritarianism has given renewed impetus to new studies into authoritarian tendencies. These suggest that a population can have a latent tendency towards authoritarian attitudes which, given the right ‘triggers’ – foreign threat, economic insecurity, religious/ethnic minorities – will result is a percentage of the electorate embrace a leader who is able to address these concerns.
|
Hannah Arendt, one of the earliest to address the appeal of totalitarianism, spoke of how alienated and socially isolated individuals are attracted by the ‘masses’ engagement for totalitarianism: 'The term ‘masses’ applies only where we deal with people who either because of sheer numbers, or indifference, or a combination of both, cannot be integrated into any organisation based on common interest, into political parties or municipal governments or professional organisations or trade unions. Potentially, they exist in every country and form the majority of those large numbers of neutral, politically indifferent people who never join a party and hardly ever go to the polls.' Hannah Arendt, Origins of Totalitarianism. |
Activity
This is a long lesson with a number of complex ideas. Hopefully you've listened carefully to the lecture. You can review the main points by reading the text above.
This is a long lesson with a number of complex ideas. Hopefully you've listened carefully to the lecture. You can review the main points by reading the text above.
|
|
|
|
Create a revision diagram/table/mind map to summarise the main ideas. There should be three sections:
1. The political, economic, social and cultural factors that enable an authoritarian state to come to power. (PESC)
2. The reasons why war is an important factor in enabling an authoritarian state to come to power. (War)
3. The methods employed by would be authoritarians to help them come to power. (Agency)