IB Paper 2 - Topic 10: 20th century authoritarian states
Political science and authoritarianism: how can we compare and contrast the different types of authoritarian states?
Political scientists today have realised the simple ‘continuous’ analysis of ‘democratic – authoritarian – totalitarian’ is too simplistic to make sense of the full range of different types of regime. The alternative to the ‘continuous analysis’ is what political science calls ‘categorical typologies’. Categorical explanations identify similarities and differences between authoritarian regimes, either by emphasising the strategy used by the dictator to stay in power or by how the dictatorship is structured. Ronald Wintrobe, for example, classifies authoritarian regimes based on the relative level of state repression and the loyalty citizens feel for the regime.
|
|
We can combine Linz and Wintrobe into a matrix. (Film right)
Here we introduce two axes, one for the extent of violence and coercion and a second for the degree to which popular ideological mobilisation is important to the regime. This not only allows us to plot the relative characteristic variations between different authoritarian regimes but also relative variations in the same regime over time. Authoritarian regimes can be just as dynamic as democratic ones. This also incorporates the work of Huntington and Moore which explained how highly ideological regimes led by charismatic dictators and dependent on terror, give way over time, to regimes that are more pragmatic, bureaucratic and less coercive. |
|
What are the different types of Authoritarian States?
‘…we cannot be satisfied with even the best descriptive studies of political life in a particular society at a particular time. We, like Aristotle when he confronted the diversity of constitutions of the Greek polis of his time, feel the need to reduce the complexity to a limited number of types sufficiently different to take into account the variety in real life but also able to describe those elements that a certain number of polities share.’. (Juan J. Linz, Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes, Riener 2000, p.50)
Like Aristotle, IB history students of authoritarian regimes, can no longer be content to acquire detailed knowledge of ‘a particular society at a particular time’. If we are to effectively compare and contrast different regimes, from different times and places, we need an intellectual framework of classification, based on the nature and structure of the regime. There is a long history of classification of democratic regimes that students will be familiar with: Some democracies are direct, others more representative, some democratic regimes have presidents, others have prime ministers, some are centralised, others are more federal, some have proportional electoral systems, others do not and so on. Attempts to categorize modern authoritarian regimes are much more difficult and only recently have been attempted. In the words of Ezrow and Franz, ‘authoritarian politics is one of the last frontiers of political science’. (Ezrow and Franz, Dictators and Dictatorships, Continuum, 2011, p.276)
Why are modern authoritarian regimes more difficult to compare and contrast than democracies?
Democracies derive their very legitimacy from the fact that they are rational attempts to resolve the fundamental question of how best to govern. Comparison of democracies requires consideration of often subtle institutional variations, based on commonly accepted principles of just and efficient political organization. In contrast, as we have seen, authoritarian regimes, in their various guises, defy easy classification because they are not necessarily based on any rational and systematic legitimation. This dilemma is nicely summed up by Milan Svolik
‘Compared to authoritarian politics, democratic politics is orderly. The "rules of the game" can be counted on. Candidates campaign, sometimes they squabble, but then - voters vote. In dictatorships, the presumed "rules of the game" are routinely broken and backstabbing is far from metaphorical.’ (Milan W. Svolik – The Politics of Authoritarian Rule p.xvii.)
However, following on from and adapting the work of Barbara Geddes and others, we can usefully identify five distinctive categories of authoritarian regime: Military dictatorship, single-party dictatorship, personalist dictatorship, monarchy and hybrid. (Geddes, Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics, The University of Michigan Press, 2003)
‘…we cannot be satisfied with even the best descriptive studies of political life in a particular society at a particular time. We, like Aristotle when he confronted the diversity of constitutions of the Greek polis of his time, feel the need to reduce the complexity to a limited number of types sufficiently different to take into account the variety in real life but also able to describe those elements that a certain number of polities share.’. (Juan J. Linz, Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes, Riener 2000, p.50)
Like Aristotle, IB history students of authoritarian regimes, can no longer be content to acquire detailed knowledge of ‘a particular society at a particular time’. If we are to effectively compare and contrast different regimes, from different times and places, we need an intellectual framework of classification, based on the nature and structure of the regime. There is a long history of classification of democratic regimes that students will be familiar with: Some democracies are direct, others more representative, some democratic regimes have presidents, others have prime ministers, some are centralised, others are more federal, some have proportional electoral systems, others do not and so on. Attempts to categorize modern authoritarian regimes are much more difficult and only recently have been attempted. In the words of Ezrow and Franz, ‘authoritarian politics is one of the last frontiers of political science’. (Ezrow and Franz, Dictators and Dictatorships, Continuum, 2011, p.276)
Why are modern authoritarian regimes more difficult to compare and contrast than democracies?
Democracies derive their very legitimacy from the fact that they are rational attempts to resolve the fundamental question of how best to govern. Comparison of democracies requires consideration of often subtle institutional variations, based on commonly accepted principles of just and efficient political organization. In contrast, as we have seen, authoritarian regimes, in their various guises, defy easy classification because they are not necessarily based on any rational and systematic legitimation. This dilemma is nicely summed up by Milan Svolik
‘Compared to authoritarian politics, democratic politics is orderly. The "rules of the game" can be counted on. Candidates campaign, sometimes they squabble, but then - voters vote. In dictatorships, the presumed "rules of the game" are routinely broken and backstabbing is far from metaphorical.’ (Milan W. Svolik – The Politics of Authoritarian Rule p.xvii.)
However, following on from and adapting the work of Barbara Geddes and others, we can usefully identify five distinctive categories of authoritarian regime: Military dictatorship, single-party dictatorship, personalist dictatorship, monarchy and hybrid. (Geddes, Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics, The University of Michigan Press, 2003)
Military Dictatorship.
This is a regime in which a group of military officers (junta) hold power, choosing the leadership and directing policy. Power is not therefore concentrated in one individual’s hands. Military dictatorships often come to power as a result of a coup or putsch and require the existence of a well-organized professional army, if they are to last.
This is a regime in which a group of military officers (junta) hold power, choosing the leadership and directing policy. Power is not therefore concentrated in one individual’s hands. Military dictatorships often come to power as a result of a coup or putsch and require the existence of a well-organized professional army, if they are to last.
Military dictatorships were commonly found in post-colonial, Sub-Saharan Africa and most typically, in Latin America between the 1960s and 1980s. The reason for this was closely tied into the Cold War and the geo-political security needs of the USA. Willing to help install conservative, anti-communist, military dictatorships as client states, the USA helped maintain these regimes, economically and militarily, despite the lack of a democratic mandate. It is a sentiment well captured by the apocryphal phrase, attributed to President Roosevelt, in describing the leader of any number of Latin American regimes: ‘he may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch.’ With the end of the Cold War, therefore, many of these regimes also came to an end.
According to Geddes, of all types of authoritarian regimes, military dictatorships are the least long-lasting, 8 years on average since 1945. Individual military leaders have an even shorter average tenure of just three years. This short life-span is a result of the key distinguishing feature of military regimes: they are often intentionally short lived. Many military dictatorships are established in a time of political or economic instability; the army sees itself as the temporary ‘moderator’ between rival civil groups or the ‘guardian’ of order, with no political intent to rule itself. Other than a basic political conservatism, or defence of the status quo, military dictatorships often have no ideological programme, or desire to mobilise the masses in support of the regime. In this respect they are clearly more authoritarian than totalitarian.
A typical example of military dictatorship can be found in the experience of Argentina which had four military dictatorships in the 20th century, the last of which lasted from 1976 to 1983. One of the key factors in explaining the rise of power of the military is precedence; if it has happened before, it is more likely to happen again. In 1976, a military junta staged a putsch against the struggling regime of Isabel Peron. Typically fearing that the economic crisis and violent clashes would descend into full-blown civil war, the military decided to take over the government. Equally typically, beyond the brutal oppression of the ‘Dirty War - Guerra Sucia’ against the 15,000 to 30,000 left-wing activists and militants the regime identified as a threat, the divided junta was unable to produce a coherent set of policies to deal with Argentina’s problems. The junta relinquished power after the humiliating defeat in the Falklands/Malvinas war of 1982.
Single-party Dictatorship
This is a regime in which a single political party controls access to political posts and directs policy; it is often combined with a strong president. Single-party dictatorships are often ideologically motivated and committed to radical policies to economically and socially transform a country, even if this reformist programme fades in importance over time. The leader of the regime is typically the head of the party, but the party is well organised and autonomous, a significant check on both the power of the leader and the military. The party controls all state institutions, local government and the media, and in the communist party variant of this regime, significant control is also exercised over economic life, and what would otherwise be private enterprise.
This is a regime in which a single political party controls access to political posts and directs policy; it is often combined with a strong president. Single-party dictatorships are often ideologically motivated and committed to radical policies to economically and socially transform a country, even if this reformist programme fades in importance over time. The leader of the regime is typically the head of the party, but the party is well organised and autonomous, a significant check on both the power of the leader and the military. The party controls all state institutions, local government and the media, and in the communist party variant of this regime, significant control is also exercised over economic life, and what would otherwise be private enterprise.
It was the emergence of single-party dictatorships in the interwar years that gave rise to initial attempts to explain this new form of modern authoritarianism as ‘totalitarian’. However, it is the post-war regimes of central and eastern Europe or south east Asia after 1945, that provide the most typical examples of this very stable, long-lasting regime. The post 1945 single party authoritarian regime lasted on average 23 year. According to Huntington and Moore, the most successful of these types of regime, are likely to have been formed by parties with a strong revolutionary tradition. Unlike military dictatorships, the nature of ideology is very important and can produce very different types of regime whether, for example, fascist or communist. (On the importance of ideology see Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 below) Importantly, as Geddes has shown, unlike many other authoritarian regimes, the single-party dictatorship is able to not only cope with, but can actually thrive on, divisions between groups within the party elite. This allows for political manoeuvring and internal dissent and what has been described as an important ‘outlet for dissatisfied politicians’. (Ezrow and Franz, Dictators and Dictatorships, Continuum, p.276)
A typical example of a single-party dictatorship is the state of Czechoslovakia, a regime that was part of the Eastern-Bloc of counties in Europe after 1945. Again, as with militarist dictatorships, the international context and foreign policy priorities provided a context for both the rise to power and consolidation of the regime. Communist Party resistance to Nazi occupation during World War and Soviet liberation provided a context in which a genuinely popular, revolutionary party could come to power in 1948. The development of the Cold War and the relationship with the USSR would continually influence the direction of domestic policy from the de-Stalinization that followed the death of Stalin in 1953 to Gorbachev’s disavowal of the Brezhnev Doctrine, which led to the collapse of the regime in 1989. Following the model of Huntington and Moore, Czechoslovakia began as what they described as a ‘revolutionary regime’; transformative ideology was central and party discipline was imposed through purges such as the Slansky trial of 1952. At this point the regime seemed to fit the totalitarian model, but over time it began to evolve into an ‘established regime’. By the 1960s through to the 1980s – with the notable exception of the Prague Spring in 1968 - discipline and order was achieved less through coercion and ideological zeal, and more through the Communist Party’s control of patronage within the state’s growing bureaucracy and control of access to material scarce resources. Loyalty to the regime brought possible promotion and privileged access to services such as health care and housing. Dissent brought the opposite. The regime was also long-lasting because rival factions and groups within the ruling elite were able to provide changing government without challenging the integrity of one-party rule. As in a democracy, rivals for power, backed by powerful interest groups within the party manoeuvred to bring about a change in leadership, such as happened to Antonin Novotny in 1969.
Personalist Dictatorship
Described by Linz as ‘Sultanist’ regimes, personalist dictatorships are regimes in which power lies with a single individual. The dictator may come from a military background or be the leader of a party, but neither political party nor military are independent of the will of the dictator, who often chooses the political elite from trusted family members or friends. They are more long-lasting than average military dictatorships, because there is a definite intent to rule, but less resilient than single-party states, because regimes rarely survive the death or removal of the dictator. Geddes calculates that post-1945 personalist dictatorships on average lasted 15 years. Again the Cold War provided a hospitable environment for personalist-dictatorships, and they typically arose in small, agricultural economies in post-colonial countries.
Personalist dictatorships are hardest to categorize, because the idiosyncratic nature of the regime often reflects the unique characteristics of the dictator himself.
Described by Linz as ‘Sultanist’ regimes, personalist dictatorships are regimes in which power lies with a single individual. The dictator may come from a military background or be the leader of a party, but neither political party nor military are independent of the will of the dictator, who often chooses the political elite from trusted family members or friends. They are more long-lasting than average military dictatorships, because there is a definite intent to rule, but less resilient than single-party states, because regimes rarely survive the death or removal of the dictator. Geddes calculates that post-1945 personalist dictatorships on average lasted 15 years. Again the Cold War provided a hospitable environment for personalist-dictatorships, and they typically arose in small, agricultural economies in post-colonial countries.
Personalist dictatorships are hardest to categorize, because the idiosyncratic nature of the regime often reflects the unique characteristics of the dictator himself.
|
However, Jackson and Rosberg have designed a four type classification (Ezrow and Franz, Dictators and Dictatorships, Continuum, 2011, pp.218-19) which compares and contrasts regimes based on aims and methods used by the dictators. Even less systematic and institutionalised than other forms of authoritarian regime, personalist dictatorships depend most on nepotism, bribery and endemic corruption, as the dictator rewards loyalty and surrounds himself with those he can trust. Surrounded by ‘yes’ men, all personalist dictators suffer from what Wintrope calls ‘dictator’s dilemma’; a paranoid belief that everyone is planning to oust the dictator, something he can never know for sure, because no-one will tell him the truth. (Wintobe, The Political Economy of Dictatorship, CUP, 1998) Other typical characteristics of personalist dictatorships include the cult of personality and the willingness to use coercion against all sections of society, including elites.
|
There are many fascinating examples of personalist dictatorships, but one of the most notorious was the rule of Mobutu Sese Seko who was dictator of Zaire (now Democratic Republic of the Congo) from 1965 to 1997. Again Cold War politics were important to his rise to power, as Mobutu was installed as a result of a Belgian-CIA backed coup against the democratically elected socialist government of Patrice Lumumba. Mobutu has been credited with inventing ‘kleptocracy’ (government by theft) and the nature of his regime has been likened to a surreal ‘Alice-in-Wonderland universe’. (Michaela Wrong, In the Footsteps of Mr Kurtz, Fourth Estate, 2000, pages 10-11). Mobutu became notorious for corruption, nepotism, and the embezzlement of between US$4–15 billion in his time as ruler. Extravagances included having his own runway built in the middle of the jungle to accommodate his privately chartered Concorde to fly him on private shopping trips to Paris. He maintained his rule through a brutal policy of divide and conquer over all potential rivals, where torture and execution were conducted before a live audience. Most distinctive was the creation of ‘Mobutism’ and a personality cult which forbade reference to any other government members by name and projected his face descending from the heavens, before the evening’s television news.
Monarchic Dictatorships
Not to be confused with constitutional monarchies whose powers are mainly ceremonial – as in the UK - monarchic dictatorships have a powerful, hereditary head of state and an elite that is formed from the same extended family. They are typically found in the oil rich countries of the Middle East and are the longest lasting of all authoritarian states. In form, they can vary considerably, some for example allow greater civil liberties than others, some allow the existence of organised political parties or a consultative parliament; but all justify their rule though the principle of traditional authority.
Not to be confused with constitutional monarchies whose powers are mainly ceremonial – as in the UK - monarchic dictatorships have a powerful, hereditary head of state and an elite that is formed from the same extended family. They are typically found in the oil rich countries of the Middle East and are the longest lasting of all authoritarian states. In form, they can vary considerably, some for example allow greater civil liberties than others, some allow the existence of organised political parties or a consultative parliament; but all justify their rule though the principle of traditional authority.
Monarchist dictatorships are the least studied form of authoritarian rule; they superficially resemble the pre-modern authoritarianism of absolute monarchy in Europe, but there are key differences which make some of these monarchies quite modern. The establishment of the monarchy’s authority over the whole country (rather than just a clan or tribe) and the geographical designation of the country itself, was often a reflection of the needs of a European – usually British – colonial power. The colonial power found it easier to administer the territory in this way, indirectly through local elites which formed a partnership with the colonial power. European rules of hereditary succession were also introduced to aid smooth the transfer of power. In addition, establishing a modern dynastic regime provided the colonial power with stability in a strategically important region and a regime capable of defending itself from international rivals.
|
With post-war independence, the royal family inherited the modern state form that had largely been created by the colonial power. Dynastic regimes do not necessarily have a single monarch, can allow for competing factions and can have succession rights decided on suitability from a reasonably extensive royal family. All these factors help the regime to survive in the long-term.
|
Saudi Arabia is a good example of a dynastic, monarchical government. It is a kingdom that, according to the 1992 constitution, can only be ruled by either the sons or grandsons of its founder, King Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud, who led the state from its foundation in 1932 to his death in 1953. Abdul Aziz’s success in breaking down tribalism was achieved through military prowess and diplomatic initiative, especially in his dealing with Britain, signing the Treaty of Jeddah in 1927. In Saudi Arabia, members of the extended royal family choose their king with approval of the religious authorities. As a result of political inter-marriage – Abdul Aziz had hundreds of wives from many important families – there are several hundred princes who effectively form the government. The constitution is based on the Holy Qur’an and the legal system is Islamic law, the Shari’a. The religious police monitor public behaviour and enforce strict religious norms. In 1953 a Council of Ministers was formed which gave the ruler the chance to consult with his chosen representatives, but he maintained a veto over all decisions. In 2006, an Allegiance Council was formed to smooth the transition of power on the death or incapacity of the king. The stability of the regime in Saudi Arabia, as in many oil rich states, is also partly explained by economic well-being and affective patronage that results.
Hybrid
As the name suggests this is a regime that blends qualities of different types of dictatorship. Egypt after 1952 under the leadership of Gamal Abdel Nasser (1952-70) and Anwar Sadat (1970-1981) constituted what Geddes calls a ‘triple threat’ dictatorship, when a dictatorship shares features of military, single-party, and personalist dictatorship.
Nasser and Sadat showed signs of personalist elements of dictatorship by ruling in a forceful, repressive and charismatic manner taking care to keep political parties and the military in check. For example, high ranking military officers were often rotated to prevent the building up of a separate power-base. But the military was always important. Nasser relied on the military rather than a political party to carry out his social policies, for example, 33% of government members were from military backgrounds. The military was also kept loyal through significant funding and carefully directed American aid. Nasser’s Arab Socialist Union and its successor the Egyptian National Democratic Party founded by Sadat in 1978 were both effectively the only parties in Egypt winning uncontested elections. Membership of the party, as in any single party state, provided preferential opportunities for career advancement in the state bureaucracy. Giving large numbers of people a stake in the future of the country, meant that the regime was actively defended by party members with much to lose if the regime failed.
As the name suggests this is a regime that blends qualities of different types of dictatorship. Egypt after 1952 under the leadership of Gamal Abdel Nasser (1952-70) and Anwar Sadat (1970-1981) constituted what Geddes calls a ‘triple threat’ dictatorship, when a dictatorship shares features of military, single-party, and personalist dictatorship.
Nasser and Sadat showed signs of personalist elements of dictatorship by ruling in a forceful, repressive and charismatic manner taking care to keep political parties and the military in check. For example, high ranking military officers were often rotated to prevent the building up of a separate power-base. But the military was always important. Nasser relied on the military rather than a political party to carry out his social policies, for example, 33% of government members were from military backgrounds. The military was also kept loyal through significant funding and carefully directed American aid. Nasser’s Arab Socialist Union and its successor the Egyptian National Democratic Party founded by Sadat in 1978 were both effectively the only parties in Egypt winning uncontested elections. Membership of the party, as in any single party state, provided preferential opportunities for career advancement in the state bureaucracy. Giving large numbers of people a stake in the future of the country, meant that the regime was actively defended by party members with much to lose if the regime failed.