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 - “Never let a good crisis go to waste” Machiavelli
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)
Extension and Extra
How else can we explain and organise the conditions that give rise to authoritarian states?
Temporal explanations: long-term causes – short-term causes.
As we have seen, it is common for historians to interpret the moment when the authoritarian regime was established. The aftermath of the civil wars in Russia and China are classic examples. But a satisfactory explanation of why these civil wars led to the creation of authoritarian states requires an analysis that works backwards through a chain of cause and consequence. A temporal explanation of the rise to power of authoritarian regimes divides the causes between those that happened a long-time before and those which happened just before. Long-term causes might have been decades before and might not have obviously or directly contributed to the creation of the regime. In the case of both Russia and China, long-term causes typically include a reference to the failure of the regimes to modernize economically or politically in the early 20th century.
All historical explanations of authoritarianism have to go back in time to outline a context in which it became possible that authoritarian regimes might be established. The only question is how far back in time the explanation needs to go. In this book, you will find explanations for the rise of modern authoritarianism in Russia and China that go back decades in time. They might easily have gone even further back.
Temporal explanations: long-term causes – short-term causes.
As we have seen, it is common for historians to interpret the moment when the authoritarian regime was established. The aftermath of the civil wars in Russia and China are classic examples. But a satisfactory explanation of why these civil wars led to the creation of authoritarian states requires an analysis that works backwards through a chain of cause and consequence. A temporal explanation of the rise to power of authoritarian regimes divides the causes between those that happened a long-time before and those which happened just before. Long-term causes might have been decades before and might not have obviously or directly contributed to the creation of the regime. In the case of both Russia and China, long-term causes typically include a reference to the failure of the regimes to modernize economically or politically in the early 20th century.
All historical explanations of authoritarianism have to go back in time to outline a context in which it became possible that authoritarian regimes might be established. The only question is how far back in time the explanation needs to go. In this book, you will find explanations for the rise of modern authoritarianism in Russia and China that go back decades in time. They might easily have gone even further back.
Short-term causes move the explanation from the realm of possibility to that of likelihood. Short-term causes more obviously and directly led to the creation of the authoritarian regime. In the case of both Russia and China, war provided an immediate, short-term context into which it was likely that an authoritarian regime would emerge. Short-term causes also tend to shift the focus of explanation from general factors to particular events and particular actions of historical actors. In this sense we can see that the division of the IB syllabus is inviting us to separate long-term contextual ‘conditions’ from short-term ‘methods’ of the historical agents.
Finally, the decision on whether short-term or long-term factors are the most important factors in the ‘emergence of authoritarian states’ can be a useful analytical tool for your evaluation of typical IB essay questions (see below). The more important you consider long-term factors to be, the more likely you are to argue that the emergence of an authoritarian state was inevitable. For example, if you think Weimar Germany was doomed from the start, you are likely to argue an authoritarian regime was bound to emerge irrespective of the methods employed by ‘the role of leaders or ideology’, or their ‘use of force and propaganda’.
Finally, the decision on whether short-term or long-term factors are the most important factors in the ‘emergence of authoritarian states’ can be a useful analytical tool for your evaluation of typical IB essay questions (see below). The more important you consider long-term factors to be, the more likely you are to argue that the emergence of an authoritarian state was inevitable. For example, if you think Weimar Germany was doomed from the start, you are likely to argue an authoritarian regime was bound to emerge irrespective of the methods employed by ‘the role of leaders or ideology’, or their ‘use of force and propaganda’.
Internal and External Factors
Another means of organising the causes of authoritarian regimes is to separate the explanation into causes from within the regime (internal) and those from outside (external). All states operate in an international context and are subject to influences from outside the regime; quite often the external factors are essential to establishment of an authoritarian regime. For example, the authoritarian regimes established in North and South Korea at the end of the Second World War reflected the interests and agreement of the USA and USSR external to the factors that may have operated within the state.
Another means of organising the causes of authoritarian regimes is to separate the explanation into causes from within the regime (internal) and those from outside (external). All states operate in an international context and are subject to influences from outside the regime; quite often the external factors are essential to establishment of an authoritarian regime. For example, the authoritarian regimes established in North and South Korea at the end of the Second World War reflected the interests and agreement of the USA and USSR external to the factors that may have operated within the state.
|
How else can we explain and organise the methods that give rise to authoritarian states?
An Audit Approach: Winner's Strengths versus Loser's Weaknesses
This approach is concerned to explain why the authoritarian revolutions, coup d'etats or civil wars referred to in the previous section were successful. Those who have successfully established an authoritarian state have done so by employing effective methods which we can identify and analyze. But we must also recognize that authoritarian regimes also come to power as a result of the failures of those who oppose them. The simplicity of this approach, which can be drawn up as an audit table, can allow for a straightforward comparison/contrast of two different authoritarian states.
An Audit Approach: Winner's Strengths versus Loser's Weaknesses
This approach is concerned to explain why the authoritarian revolutions, coup d'etats or civil wars referred to in the previous section were successful. Those who have successfully established an authoritarian state have done so by employing effective methods which we can identify and analyze. But we must also recognize that authoritarian regimes also come to power as a result of the failures of those who oppose them. The simplicity of this approach, which can be drawn up as an audit table, can allow for a straightforward comparison/contrast of two different authoritarian states.
|
Which is more important, the authoritarians’ strengths or their opponents’ weaknesses? Historians have tended to focus on the strengths of authoritarianism, but as Linz argues we should be careful not to overestimate the ability of anti-democratic leaders and mass movements, but should instead concentrate on supporters of democracy who show an ‘inability to confront their opponents in defence of liberal democracy’ (Linz p.13)
|
Regime Type and Method - military dictatorship, single-party state, personalist dictatorship and monarchy.
Another approach to categorizing the methods used to establish authoritarian regimes distinguishes between the different types of authoritarian regime that are eventually established.
The methods used in the creation of a military dictatorship revolve around the organization and implementation of a military coup. According to Samuel Finer, two factors determine whether a military will rise to power: disposition and opportunity. (Finer, The Man on Horseback, 1962) Contextual factors are therefore essential. If the military feels that the time is right for takeover, the machinery for seizing power is already in place. In regions of the world prone to military coups in the 20th century, such as Latin America, the military was usually the best organized and funded institution in the state. Popular support for the success of the coup was therefore unnecessary, because collective opposition to the army is difficult to organize. Usually the military works to protect the interests of an economic and social elite – of which it is usually a part - and therefore if a political programme exists it is usually presented in terms of defending law and order and the 'national interest'. The lack of popular support and a positive political programme means that military dictatorships are unlikely to be long lasting. External support is often very important. In Cold War era Latin America, the support of the USA, especially after the Cuban Revolution of 1959, was a very important feature of the success of military dictatorship. US financing, modern training and top secret intelligence often provided military elites with the means to successfully seize power. Recently declassified CIA documentation has revealed the significant 'extra-legal' involvement of the US government in supporting military coups in Latin America.
Another approach to categorizing the methods used to establish authoritarian regimes distinguishes between the different types of authoritarian regime that are eventually established.
The methods used in the creation of a military dictatorship revolve around the organization and implementation of a military coup. According to Samuel Finer, two factors determine whether a military will rise to power: disposition and opportunity. (Finer, The Man on Horseback, 1962) Contextual factors are therefore essential. If the military feels that the time is right for takeover, the machinery for seizing power is already in place. In regions of the world prone to military coups in the 20th century, such as Latin America, the military was usually the best organized and funded institution in the state. Popular support for the success of the coup was therefore unnecessary, because collective opposition to the army is difficult to organize. Usually the military works to protect the interests of an economic and social elite – of which it is usually a part - and therefore if a political programme exists it is usually presented in terms of defending law and order and the 'national interest'. The lack of popular support and a positive political programme means that military dictatorships are unlikely to be long lasting. External support is often very important. In Cold War era Latin America, the support of the USA, especially after the Cuban Revolution of 1959, was a very important feature of the success of military dictatorship. US financing, modern training and top secret intelligence often provided military elites with the means to successfully seize power. Recently declassified CIA documentation has revealed the significant 'extra-legal' involvement of the US government in supporting military coups in Latin America.
|
Although military support can also be very important to the success of single-party dictatorships, much more important is the level of popular support the party is able to generate. As a consequence, effective political organisation, electoral campaigning and charismatic leadership are more important methods on the road to seizing power. For this reason, ideology is much more important to single-party states than military dictatorships. If the rejection of liberal democratic government is to be justified and a wide group of potential supporters is to be assembled, there must be ideas and a practical political programme based on these ideas, that appeal to a wide range of people. Attempting revolution is a dangerous business and the risk must be considered worthwhile by enough would-be revolutionaries. As Lenin himself argued in Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder a favourable context of government crisis is not enough, ‘…for revolution it is essential, first, that a majority of the workers …should fully understand that revolution is necessary and be ready to sacrifice their lives for it'.
|
Student activity – CIA involvement in Latin America coups Divide into four groups. Using the National Security Archive website, research the extent of the secret role of the US government in military coups in one of the following countries: Guatemala 1954 Brazil 1964 Chile 1973 Argentina 1976 In each example consider the importance of US involvement in comparison to other factors. www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/ The National Security Archive is an independent non-governmental research institute at The George Washington University |
What happens after electoral success brings an authoritarian party to power varies significantly, but the erosion of democratic government is characteristically a gradual process of concentrating power. In the case of the communist takeover of central and eastern Europe after 1945 some pattern is discernible. The historian Hugh Seton-Watson identified three stages. It begins with the establishment of a left-wing coalition. This coalition gradually replaces key democratic personnel, so that the coalition is merely a 'bogus coalition'. Finally, the communist party merges all parties under its control and a single-party state is established. (R. J. Crampton, Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century - and After, Taylor and Francis 1994 p.221)
And finally, if a party is organised along military lines, has access to arms and has been trained in their usage, it is better able to hold on to power. In this sense, external military support can be just as important to single-party dictatorships as military dictatorships, as was shown by the support of the USSR to many post -1945 communist revolutions. Brooker concludes that the communist regimes of Mongolia, Poland, East-Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania and North Korea were not popular revolutionary states, but installed military by the USSR. (Brooker, Non-Democratic Regimes, 2000)
And finally, if a party is organised along military lines, has access to arms and has been trained in their usage, it is better able to hold on to power. In this sense, external military support can be just as important to single-party dictatorships as military dictatorships, as was shown by the support of the USSR to many post -1945 communist revolutions. Brooker concludes that the communist regimes of Mongolia, Poland, East-Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania and North Korea were not popular revolutionary states, but installed military by the USSR. (Brooker, Non-Democratic Regimes, 2000)
The methods employed by personalist dictatorships on the rise to power, can be very similar to both military and single-party dictatorships. Franco's military coup and Mao's revolution owed much to military and party organization respectively. The key difference with personalist dictatorships is the disproportionate importance of the individual leader vis-a-vis the military and party. Initially this might not be apparent, as the individual relies on the military or state to seize power, but soon after, power is increasingly concentrated in the hands of the individual leader. In the rise to power the individual leader is likely to personify the party or military structure that they head, whilst their positive, personal attributes are elevated to almost mythical proportions. A cult of the individual leader that emphasizes intellectual brilliance, insight and moral certitude, is set to a back-story of heroism and personal sacrifice. In Sub-Saharan Africa, which has produced a high percentage of personalist dictatorships, the regimes often emerge from regional, tribal or familial strongholds which provide an organizational basis for the charismatic 'big chiefs' rule. Political parties may exist, and the dictator may dress in military garb, but parties and the military are of only superficial importance. The ideology and political programme of personalist dictatorships often reflect the anti-colonial context in which they are formed and the high levels of coercive violence employed by the new regime reflect the coercive character of the preceding colonial regime. Yet despite the anti-colonialism, the rise to power of the Sub-Saharan African personalist dictatorship was often heavily dependent on the external role of the colonial power. France supplied the Central African Republic regime of Jean-Bédel Bokassa with half his budget and Belgium's role was central to the assassination of Patrice Lumumba and the rise of Joseph Mobutu in the Democratic Republic of Congo. And as with other types of post-1945 authoritarian states, the ongoing Cold War meant that the USSR, USA and PRC were keen to support the rise to power of sympathetic dictatorships in geopolitical areas of interest.
The methods employed by monarchic dictatorships in their rise to power are the most distinctive of authoritarian states. The legitimization of a monarchy does not depend on the popular support for a political programme essential to single party dictatorships, nor can a monarchy claim to be a temporary reassertion of law and order, as is often the case with military dictatorships. Monarchy depends first and foremost on the continuation of what under the Weberian classification of authority is known as established 'traditional' rule. Therefore if there is no obvious tradition, the most important method employed by monarchic tradition is invented tradition. Even if it isn't old, it must look old. For example, when Hussein bin Ali declared himself King of Hijaz (now part of Jordan) in 1917, his claim to be a direct descendant of the Prophet Mohammad was an essential part of his attempt at legitimation.
|
Weber's Tripartite Classification of Authority
One of the founding fathers of sociology, Max Weber (1864 – 1920) distinguished three ideal types of legitimate political authority 1. charismatic authority (familial and religious), 2. traditional authority (feudalism) 3. legal authority (modern law and state, bureaucracy). According to Weber, authority is power accepted as legitimate by those subjected to it. These three forms of authority are said to appear in a 'hierarchical development order'. States progress from charismatic authority, to traditional authority, and finally reach the state of rational-legal authority which is characteristic of a modern liberal democracy. |
The second distinctive characteristic of the establishment of monarchic dictatorships was the role of external colonial influence in the establishment and international recognition of the regime as a modern nation state. Usually the tribal authority had long been established, but the extension and consolidation of tribal authority and existing dynastic families, as a modern nation state, required the significant involvement of colonial powers. For example in the case of Egypt, the creation of a modern independent nation state was heavily influenced by the role of Britain, which had previously held a protectorate over the region. The declaration of independence was a document drawn up by both the British and Egyptian authorities. For example, Fuad I of Egypt and Sudan, substituted the title of 'King' for 'Sultan' when the United Kingdom recognised Egyptian independence in 1922.