Pros And Cons Of Authoritarianism Essay

Authoritarianism can be a favorable system of government because it is more efficient that even parliamentary democracy, and extremely stable when implemented correctly. Unfortunately this is a slippery slope: while the country has stability it needs to retain its stability, and the only way one can do that is by hampering free speech and free press. Once you start hampering free speech, one would want to control more and more of the public’s access to oppositional materials, and this eventually leads to abolishing habeas corpus and other things people take for granted.

It is generally not healthy to do this, but it is one of the only ways to keep a stable regime. With that stated, what kind of authoritarian government is best? Personalist would not work unless you have someone in power who would love to partake in a cult of personality. Even if one has that, the system is very unstable. What happens when the leader dies? How would power be transferred? Even then, how many people would be willing to partake in the cult of personality?

There would have to be a lot of limiting of free speech and a lot of human rights violations to justify this kind of system, and going straight into it from a democracy is extremely dicey. Military rule also seems like a good idea but is subject to the same faults as personalist. One could establish it easily through a coup d’etat, but what happens if there’s a faction in the military that wants to rule instead of the current people in power? Single party systems are better for the goal of an authoritarian state.

They are generally run by a political party with a unifying idea, such as China’s Communist Party. They are stable, at least in comparison to a personalist or military system. Theocracies follow the same line, but instead of having a political ideal they have a religious ideal. Both systems are stable until something from outside happens like a recession, however, so one has to take that into consideration. The best system to use is a hybrid system.

It is somewhat easy to implement: the president needs to exercise power such that he stays in rule, or manipulate the current democratic system so that one party stays in power. It has all the benefits of a single party system, and maintains the illusion of democracy so that external forces do not think the system is authoritarian. I do concede that the system has the same faults as a single party system, and can also be subject to a lot of scrutiny as the transition occurs, but generally this is the easiest system to transition to from a democracy.

Admittedly, in most regimes the transition from democracy to authoritarianism undergoes a lot of scrutiny from the press and from the people, but in comparison to throwing out the entire system and replacing it, a hybrid democracy allows for rapid change and retaining of some aspects of the original system. Another question that needs to be answered is how will Mihntalo remain a state after the transition. Mihntalo will need to retain the three things which keeps a state a state: legitimate use of force, ability to protect territorial boundaries, and sovereignty.

These points can be a little contentious. Will Mihntalo be able to use military force without devolving into torture? Will Mihntalo be able to rule without external or internal forces constraining its rule? It is really all dependent on how much the government is willing to exert force. Too much force and the state will become unjustified in its use of force, and too little will help aid state collapse. Military force, the illusion of elections, and an extremely regulated market economy will help to support the new regime as institutions.

If a government has a weak military which cannot enforce the rules and institutions, then the people or opposing forces from outside the nation will be able to take over. So one needs to assert themselves, but as stated before, not too much. The illusion of elections is important, since it allows the regime to gain information from the people, acts as a masquerade (since most people are focused on the election there are less eyes on the government), and lets Mihntalo get aid from countries critical of its authoritarian switch, due to it appearing to have some aspects of democracy still.

A regulated market economy helps through two ways: the suppressing of coordination goods, which help the regime stay in power by shifting the political playing field in favor of the incumbent party, and direct intervention in the lives of the people. According to Bueno de Mesquita and Downs, regimes who suppress coordination goods have a longer life than those who do not. By extension, regimes who are more directly influential in regulating or influencing the economy tend to have better economies than laissez-faire systems.

Regulating the economy increases people’s satisfaction with the regime, and it gives the regime more power to aid the people through money. This does come with a cost: a richer middle class can gain access to education more easily and consequently gain access to dissenting sources of information. So while being hands on with the economy can help the state thrive, there is also the risk of empowering the citizenry against the regime. On that note, another question must be addressed: How will Mihntalo avoid state collapse?

One needs to make sure the elites are happy and willing to help the government. If they are not, they can and will use their power to find ways to supplant authority or revolt against the regime, with or without the help of the lower class. If the elites are not happy, one can simply offer deals with them or give them higher positions in government when elections happen. One also needs to make sure the majority party does not factionalize. The authority of the regime will be under question if there are factions within the party fighting over the goals and ideas of the party.

Both of these can help to cause doubt in the regime and can help to weaken the state. Strong states tend to provide for their citizens and protect them, manage economy, collect capital/taxes, make rules and enforce laws. Weaker/collapsed states fail to do any of these. So if a state is to be strong, they need to provide institutions for them which help citizens on a daily basis, such as public water, regulation of goods, and rule of law. In order for a state to be strong, the state needs to be active in every branch of life.

It also would help to unite the populace under an ideal and to give the impression that the government is doing the right thing for the people. One also need to make sure outside forces are placated as well so that there is not any external pressure against the regime. In order for Mihntalo to transition from a democracy to a state, they need to transition to a hybrid regime. A hybrid regime guarantees some elements of democracy with some elements of authoritarianism, is easy to transition to in comparison to other systems, and helps to retain important institutions which can be later used to aid the government.