AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES

Theory of non-democratic regimes

1. ??

2. ??

3. Authority is a relationship of power!

THE CONCEPT: HISTORY AND MEANINGS

Authoritarianism is a concept; as such it has a specific history and is contested:

authority (= asymmetric form of power) + “ism” (ideology= set of ideas; a vision of the world)

A way to turn authority as a central idea in society’s perception. It is characterised by an ideology in

itself ≠ totalitarianism has powerful and strong specific ideologies (such as racisms, sexism, etc.)

It is a modern concept, invented in the XX century to mean:

ideology → the way ideas are organised and operate in reality⬝

mode of power → practical modes to use power⬝

distinctive mentality → a specific psychological ⬝?? of individuals

[Same semantic field of Despotism, Caesarism, dictatorship, Bonapartism, etc.]

DEMOCRACY - AUTHORITARIANISM - TOTALITARIANISM

It is not a negation of democracy but it’s the opposite.

It is both

- a fact/form of political reality: existing illiberal/non-democratic modes of government

- an idea of theory: an abstract linguistic convention to distinguish a typified object

Theoretical definition

A regime in which political power is boundless and substantially concentrated in

- one person, generally a man. Identified as the leader

- a specific closed group: élite, family, tribe/clan, bureaucracy, apparatus

Authoritarianism is characterised by specific features:

⬝limited (or completely denied) civil liberties and asymmetrical power relations between the

government and the governed

boundaries of political mechanism are conditioned and ill-defined, though still predictable⬝

⬝low levels of political participation and political plurality (sometimes elections)

⬝violence or threat of violence employed as a political mean

Conditions of possibility and consequences of authoritarianism are not necessarily distinct, they often

operate together and intermingle:

- existence of a society and existence of an institutional state

- suspension or serious weakening of the rule of law

- suppression of and control of media, influence on public opinion and cultural arena

- demobilisation and depoliticization of society

- appropriation and management of economic resources by the rulers

MAJOR ACTORS IN AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES

Certain actors and the role they play are essential to the existence of authoritarianism. The interaction

and the distribution of power among such actors determines the political form of an authoritarian

regime.

Single individuals: charismatic and powerful political leaders or institutional chiefs⚬

Anteprima parziale del testo

Scarica Modulo tognocchi, PIS e più Appunti in PDF di Scienza Politica solo su Docsity!

AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES

Theory of non-democratic regimes

Authority is a relationship of power! THE CONCEPT: HISTORY AND MEANINGS Authoritarianism is a concept; as such it has a specific history and is contested: authority (= asymmetric form of power) + “ism” (ideology= set of ideas; a vision of the world) A way to turn authority as a central idea in society’s perception. It is characterised by an ideology in itself ≠ totalitarianism has powerful and strong specific ideologies (such as racisms, sexism, etc.) It is a modern concept, invented in the XX century to mean: ⬝ ideology → the way ideas are organised and operate in reality ⬝ mode of power → practical modes to use power ⬝ distinctive mentality → a specific psychological?? of individuals [Same semantic field of Despotism , Caesarism , dictatorship , Bonapartism , etc.] DEMOCRACY - AUTHORITARIANISM - TOTALITARIANISM It is not a negation of democracy but it’s the opposite. It is both

a fact/form of political reality: existing illiberal/non-democratic modes of government
an idea of theory: an abstract linguistic convention to distinguish a typified object

Theoretical definition

A regime in which political power is boundless and substantially concentrated in

one person, generally a man. Identified as the leader
a specific closed group: élite, family, tribe/clan, bureaucracy, apparatus Authoritarianism is characterised by specific features: ⬝ limited (or completely denied) civil liberties and asymmetrical power relations between the government and the governed ⬝ boundaries of political mechanism are conditioned and ill-defined, though still predictable ⬝ low levels of political participation and political plurality (sometimes elections) ⬝ violence or threat of violence employed as a political mean Conditions of possibility and consequences of authoritarianism are not necessarily distinct, they often operate together and intermingle:
existence of a society and existence of an institutional state
suspension or serious weakening of the rule of law
suppression of and control of media, influence on public opinion and cultural arena
demobilisation and depoliticization of society
appropriation and management of economic resources by the rulers MAJOR ACTORS IN AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES Certain actors and the role they play are essential to the existence of authoritarianism. The interaction and the distribution of power among such actors determines the political form of an authoritarian regime. ⚬ Single individuals: charismatic and powerful political leaders or institutional chiefs

⬝use power deliberately ⬝ embody the state ⚬ Élites: semi-closed small groups that share a social, ethnic, economic, political identity and protect it ⬝ provide economic support and socio-political legitimacy ⬝ ensure control of state apparatuses and protect oligarchy interests by loyalty and co-optation ⚬ Masses: large and loose groups that share a social, ethnic, economic, political identity ⬝ provide consensus or/and embrace an ideology; can be mobilised against other groups ⬝ demobilised, repressed, and depoliticized TYPOLOGIES OF AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES There can be identified some key variants of authoritarian regimes that have recurred frequently in history: ⬝ personalist or Sultanistic : a single individual and a small loyal circle hold power ⬝ corporatist: socio-economic groups holding power and resources ⬝ racial: ethnic group ruling exclusively ⬝ military Junta/Military Officer: army members hold power ⬝ bureaucratic/Military-Bureaucratic: technocrats and/or military holding power ⬝ post-totalitarian: totalitarian institutions remain in place ⬝ hybrid: de jure power is held legitimately, but de facto a small group exerts substantial influence TRANSFORMATIONS OF AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES Authoritarian regimes are not endless → they are contingent forms. Historically, evidence proves that specific political process can turn them into other political forms: ⬝ democracy: democratisation by rupture or by reform ⬝ totalitarian forms: by the combination of authority and radical ideologies ⬝ moderate forms of authoritarianism tending to opening and pluralism by liberalisation ⬝ institutionalised forms of authoritarianism 16/

Authoritarianism and the military in politics

Military regimes are not completely overlapped with authoritarian regimes, but they share a lot of features. Military as an institution: those who possess the material forces (arms and weapons) → provide security against inside and outside threads. Relations between civil society and the army in the modern state may look effective, but in reality they are characterised by a dilemma, the civil-military problématique *

a simple paradox: because we fear others (foreigners) we create an institution of violence to protect us, but at the same time we fear the very institution we created for protection - Peter D. Feaver (1996) ⤷ tension between the military domain and the civil domain The arms forces will immediately get trapped in this paradox! THE MILITARY IN POLITICS

MODES FOR THE MILITARY TO INTERVENE INTO THE POLITICAL ARENA

The military occupying power positions in a regime can follow different formal/informal procedures. The most common in history are: ⬝ designation: rulers/public opinion (e.g. multinational companies) can be interested in calling and appoint military personnel in power positions, rategr tan politicians ⬝ coup d'état (golpe): when the military takes power by means of direct of indirect force: emergency, breakdown of roder, will of political community, lack of alternatives, etc. Coup are hazardous, as they can fail, but effective as there is no turning back (one of the most effective means) ⬝ high levels of violence/civil war: military decides to save the politics from disorder and to establish order ⬝ external intervention: when an external political actor influences directly or indirectly (economics, propaganda, cultural religious backing, colonisation, imperial policies, etc.) a sovereign state WHICH ROLE DOES THE MILITARY PLAY IN THE POLITICAL ARENA Evidence suggests there can be at least two possible roles that the military usually played into the political arena:

military as “ arbitrator ” = mediator in a transitory political context
military as “ ruler ” = a thorough and powerful political actor The two roles imply different outcomes: 1 ↦regimes where the military plays as “arbitrator” generally within short periods of time end up into a transition towards different regimes kinds 2 ↦when the military intervenes and plays as “ruler”, then the military seeks to change the institutional scaffolding of the politics and transform the rules of the game WHICH INSTITUTIONAL CONFIGURATIONS MILITARY OR CIVIL-MILITARY REGIMES TAKE ⬝ bureaucratic-military regime: the military occupies relevant government positions, but there are till some civil institutions in place ⬝ military oligarchy (junta): a small grupo of high rank officers (usually from the army branch) occupy power positions ⬝ military despotism ( Caesarims ): a single individual member of the military is unconditionally chief of state ⬝ totalitarian military regime: an authoritarian military regime characterised by a strong ideological footprint mobilising integrally and radically civil society ⬝ stratocracy: power of the army → the military institution substitutes civil institutions. The state becomes the army: military culture, logics, habits, practices permeate the civil sphere IMPLICATIONS FOR THE REGIME What does history tell us about the long-run consequences of military intervention into politics? ⬝ resistance to change: strategies of “coup-proofing” and tendency to hold status quo or “civilise” the leadership ⬝ risky foreign policy choices: the military in power generally tends to be keener to aggressive/warlike relations ⬝ further violence: literature suggests that a coup increases likelihood of further violent actions as other coups or the possibility of “countercoup” ⬝ external intervention: another power or international organisations/institutions

⬝ socio-economic problems: evidence shows deep and severe risk of financial, economic and social crisis ⬝ high levels of contestation: likely violent resistance and escalation ⬝ riots and additional spread of violence: social movements resistance and eventually the possibility of civil war or endemic violence contemporary examples: Turkey and Myanmar (successful coup d’état)

Modulo tognocchi, PIS, Appunti di Scienza Politica

Documenti correlati

Anteprima parziale del testo

Scarica Modulo tognocchi, PIS e più Appunti in PDF di Scienza Politica solo su Docsity!

AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES

Theory of non-democratic regimes

Theoretical definition

Authoritarianism and the military in politics

MODES FOR THE MILITARY TO INTERVENE INTO THE POLITICAL ARENA