Blog Discussion Group Three
Blog post due at 11:55pm on Sep. 19 and comment due at 11:55pm on Sep. 22.
Nondemocratic Rule
1. What are some of the essential differences between democracies and authoritarian regimes?
2. What are authoritarian leaders mainly concerned in their political rule?
Political Culture
3. Do you agree with Huntington that today’s world is increasingly characterized by a “clash of civilizations”?
4. How does political culture differ from political ideology?
Nondemocratic Rule
1. What are some of the essential differences between democracies and authoritarian regimes?
2. What are authoritarian leaders mainly concerned in their political rule?
Political Culture
3. Do you agree with Huntington that today’s world is increasingly characterized by a “clash of civilizations”?
4. How does political culture differ from political ideology?
4. How does political culture differ from political ideology?
ReplyDeleteThe base model of the society is based on the economic foundation and forms the ideology of the society, or as its legal system, political system, and religion. For Marx, the economic base determines the superstructure, because the ruling class controls the production relations of society, and the social superstructure depends on what is most favorable to the ruling class, so the ideology of a society is of great importance.
So ideology determines the political system, affecting the political culture. Political culture is a country’s long-term formation of a relatively stable for the life of which the political system and the political role of the cognitive, emotional and attitude. Political organizations and other institutional structures corresponding to become the subjective political system.
Prime Political culture as the political system of the concept of things, contains a wide range of content. Political ideology and political ideology can be seen as a more systematic and rational expression of a country’s political culture. In daily life, political culture is generally a certain political awareness or consciousness, political values, political beliefs, political emotions, political attitudes and other forms of performance.
Political culture is a country’s long-term formation of a relatively stable life. For the political system and the political role of the cognitive, emotional and attitude, it and the government, political organizations and other institutional structure corresponds to become the subjective elements of the political system.
I like how you stated that ideology determines the political culture and I agree but, don't you think you are capable of having an "unpopular" ideology (not necessarily bad) and because it is not common in the population it is not really affecting the political culture?
DeleteI am not sure about what you meant by the "long term formation of a relatively stable life". Would you be able to explain it to me?
1. What are some of the essential differences between democracies and authoritarian regimes?
ReplyDeleteAlthough there are different types of authoritarian states, "most non-democracies are authoritarian" (59), which means that they are opposite in a lot of ways. The main difference between democracies and authoritarian regimes is the amount of participation of the people. Hague and Harrop point out that, "rulers seek to maintain their control by limiting mass participation, rather than mobilizing the population" (59). Although there are certain societal boundaries that hold back some people in our society from being fully involved in our politics, in democracies (like ours) we have a constitution that limits the amount of people one person or elite group can have. Within that constitution, it is stated that not only are there limits to the officials power, they also have to be first elected by the people. From these two facts, there are differing practices for each category we talked about in class including civil liberties and rights, elections, rule of law, and maintaining order, but in my opinion, the difference in the type of power of government is the main things that decides everything else.
When analyzing the main difference of power, I think about the point made my Hague and Harrop about the sustainability of authoritarianism on page 63. Now that we have thought about the fundamental difference, I would like to think/talk about which is "better" than the other? In my eyes creating a sustainable government that not only includes the majority of people, but is able to maintain stability for a long time is ideal. What do you think?
1. What are some of the essential differences between democracies and authoritarian regimes? To begin, authoritarian regimes don’t operate or conduct law under a constitution as democracies do. The US constitution, for example, allows for checks and balances that prevent any one branch of the government from gaining power over the others. Comparatively, Hague and Harrop (2013) point out that in authoritarian regimes, “the constitutional architecture (if any) is a poor guide. Laws are vague and contradictory” (p. 59). Top political leaders in democracies are voted by the population whether nationally, state-wide or regionally. The process of holding elections gives voting members of the citizen population freedom to choose a candidate that best reflects their ideals. In some authoritarian regimes, such as the Saudi Arabian monarchy, “the king typically designates a crown prince as his preferred successor, [the] custom requires that a clan council meets after the monarch’s death to confirm, or indeed change, this appointment” (Hague & Harrop, p. 64). This process, as with the selection of leadership in most authoritarian regimes, is free of citizen consideration. If elections are held within an authoritarian regime, they are not likely to be ‘free and fair’. Lastly, Hague and Harrop differentiate democracies and authoritarian regimes by identifying specific components, or tendencies, of authoritarian rule. They write, “Leaders exploit three key devices: the military, patronage and the media” (p.60). The usage of resources is unequally dispersed among members of the armed forces and used to encourage private patronage for lasting support. Furthermore, those living under the rule of authoritarian regimes aren’t given certain rights, like the freedom of speech, as the regimes largely control media outlets to disseminate propaganda. While leaders of democracies seek to strengthen military defense and economic allegiances, decisions are made involving all branches of the government. Most authoritarian leaders hold supreme power and therefore, their practices are more overtly corrupt.
ReplyDelete3. Do you agree with Huntington that today’s world is increasingly characterized by a “clash of civilizations”?
ReplyDelete- I do agree with Huntington's "clash of civilizations." If you actually sit back and think about the different conflicts the world has had, most of them involve cultural differences. Many economic conflicts can be negotiated, but cultural differences have no easy solution. A good example of this is the Yugoslavian conflicts. The Russians provided diplomatic support to the Serbs, not because of ideology, power politics, or economic interest, but because of cultural kinship. (Hague & Harrop, 103) Huntington also that the contemporary division between Islam and the West is indeed cultural, but may lie in religion. In this cultural divide, there are major differences in education and upbringing. Western education is openly non-spiritual, which allows schools to teach scientific knowledge and technical training. (103) Muslim countries, on the other hand, have literal instruction from the Koran that remains a major theme, which ill-prepares young people for the modern world. (104)
I totally agree with it. The present world is characterized by multi-polarization and globalization. Because of this, the conflicts between different regions is increasingly common. His point is to view civilization as an important variable in international relations and the basis of national behavior in country's affairs. At the same time, he claimed that the clash of civilizations was the source of future international conflicts while the world order based on civilization is the most reliable. In practical international relations, it is also a matter of significant potential impact.
Delete2. What are authoritarian leaders mainly concerned in their political rule?
ReplyDeleteThe primary concern of authoritarian leaders is centralizing government power, and maintaining that power over a long period of time. The power is held by a single individual or small group of individuals. As long as citizens do not interfere with the politics of the nation, they do not need to worry about government interference. To uphold federal power, authoritarian regimes utilize three key resources: the military, patronage, and the media.
A strong military presence is used to prevent any civil unrest or potential threats to the authoritarian regime. The leaders use this resource so the people know they are willing to use it if they deem it necessary. “For instance, the massacre of pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square in Beijing in 1989 goes unmentioned in Chinese media” (Hague and Harrop, p. 101). In order to maintain its centralized power, the regime used military force to suppress what is perceived a threat with military force.
Authoritarian regimes utilize resources, which are attained from patronage networks, by distributing them to their supporters. Power holders control these networks, offering jobs and other making money opportunities to earn the people’s favor. Strong allegiances to the current regime benefits people economically. As long as the patrons are happy, they are willing to look the other way when it comes to political corruption. Authoritarian leaders centralize their power by controlling key economic commodities, enabling them to buy out political loyalty.
Public image is crucial for an authoritarian regime to maintain legitimacy for its people. Authoritarians control the media to achieve this goal. Controlling the media allows them to show the people all of the authoritarian’s accomplishments, while at the same time condemning their political opponents. With strong approval by its people, and disapproval for political adversaries, the authoritarian regime’s power is strengthened thanks to the control over the media.
2. What are authoritarian leaders mainly concerned in their political rule?
ReplyDeleteBased on our reading in the Essentials of comparative politics and the slides from class authoritarian leaders are mainly concerned with non competitive systems which gives them a direct link to society. Authoritarians are wanting Political parties that will ultimately support the regime and oversee the bureaucracy. They want to keep a close power over the people it seems. they demand to have the power over the political figures and in our power points it states that they "do not permit activity by social groups, citizens, or other governmental agencies." I am surprised that Authoritarian groups still exist. Authoritarians would like to have full control over their people and keep a tight eye on what there citizens do.
I agree with your assessment on what the main concerns of Authoritarian rulers are. An Authoritarian leader retains all power, authority, and control, and reserves the right to make all decisions. Authoritarian rulers do not trust there counterparts, and closely supervise and control people under them. I am also surprised that these governments still exist, and think that eventually they will all be overthrown or just extinguished by the people. Democracies seem to have a more stable economy in most situations, and allowing human freedoms will always win over no freedoms at all.
Delete1. What are some of the essential differences between democracies and authoritarian regimes?
ReplyDeleteDemocracy and authoritarianism regimes are very different ways of governing people. They differ in terms of power of government, civil liberties and rights, maintaining order, rule of law, and how they hold elections. Democratic Regimes relies on a formal constitution that protects citizens' rights. The people participate in free and fair elections to choose who represents them in government. This is usually only for a fixed time. Democracy serves the interest of the people. In a democratic regime, orderly demonstrations are legal and protests are guaranteed by law. Force is rarely used to restrain the disorderly.
In an authoritarian regime, the people often have no real choice in elections. If an election takes place it's often rigged and a winner is already picked. The government relies on ideology, religion, or personal charisma as a source of moral authority. The government looks for total control of all political power. Collective interest takes precedence over individual rights. Force is often used to keep the peace. “People give priority to authority and strong leadership over freedom and expression.” (Hague and Harrop, p109). In low income countries, the people sometimes agree with authoritarian regimes because it offers security and order.
What are some of the essential differences between democracies and authoritarian regimes?
ReplyDeleteAny two types of government are different with respect to many factors. Some are interrelated whereas some maybe drastically distinct. Freedom of speech, Majority rule, People’s rights, and the power of voting are the advantages of Democracy whereas Authoritarian advantages are that they can pass laws quicker, because they have less hoops to jump through. In an Authoritarian rule there is no individual freedom, No political freedom, and they only have one person in power. In Democracies, the misuse of public funds are prevalent, as well as most democracies tend to favor the rich.
Authoritarian Regimes have a rigged election process, they have a government who is more concerned with having people obey laws, than in people having freedoms. I think that eventually all Authoritarian governments will be overthrown. I do not think this will happen over night, but eventually these countries will conform, realizing that it is not in a countries best interest to allow basically 1 person to make all the decisions. I watched a documentary on North Korea this weekend, which is an Authoritarian Government, and it was shocking to see that the people of North Korea have no media source other than what is provided by the North Korean Government. The kids in North Korea have only a few songs that they are taught, and they are only songs about the leaders of North Korea.
DeleteThe essential differences between a democracy and an authoritarian rule is appearances. If you look at voting, in an authoritarian regime there's really only one party or one person that's in control to actually vote for. The voting process is merely a ritualistic showing of how powerful the authoritarian regime is. But if you look at our American democracy, everyone has an equal vote but not everyone has an equal voice. The rich businesses and investors control the voice because they control the money that is deposited into the campaigns of the elected officials who want to remain in power or to gain power. Therefore in both regimes the elitist control the money, control the election, and control the policy. This is similar to how Sylva Bashevkin describes the influence of interest groups by funding the campaign who will likely support their interest. (137)
Then you can look at the control of media. In an authoritarian regime they tend to keep the oppositional voice quiet and there is either backlash of punishment for free speech. Media is extremely censored in an authoritarian regime. But in our American democracy we are giving an impression of Free Speech but it is the same elitist who control campaigns that own and control networks, social media, and the news. So although our media isn't censored the dominant voice is absolutely controlled by the elitist.
Third if you look at the control of resources in an authoritarian regime, it is up to the leader as to how the resources are distributed. Similarly in our American democracy it can be seen that our middle class is shrinking as our top 1% owns more more and they become wealthy off the labor of the middle and lower classes. The only difference is because we have a free-market we claim that anyone has the opportunity to become part of the top 1% as opposed to the elitist in an authoritarian regime. In practice the ability to achieve that top bracket is nearly impossible.
The truth is in order to truly separate an authoritarian regime from a democracy similar to the one in the US is to expand the voice of people who do not have the influence of wealth. Similar to a parliamentary democracy where each individual voice has a contribution and it's not a majority win all environment.
DeleteThe essential differences between a democracy and an authoritarian rule is appearances. If you look at voting, in an authoritarian regime there's really only one party or one person that's in control to actually vote for. The voting process is merely a ritualistic showing of how powerful the authoritarian regime is. But if you look at our American democracy, everyone has an equal vote but not everyone has an equal voice. The rich businesses and investors control the voice because they control the money that is deposited into the campaigns of the elected officials who want to remain in power or to gain power. Therefore in both regimes the elitist control the money, control the election, and control the policy. This is similar to how Sylva Bashevkin describes the influence of interest groups by funding the campaign who will likely support their interest. (137)
Then you can look at the control of media. In an authoritarian regime they tend to keep the oppositional voice quiet and there is either backlash of punishment for free speech. Media is extremely censored in an authoritarian regime. But in our American democracy we are giving an impression of Free Speech but it is the same elitist who control campaigns that own and control networks, social media, and the news. So although our media isn't censored the dominant voice is absolutely controlled by the elitist.
Third if you look at the control of resources in an authoritarian regime, it is up to the leader as to how the resources are distributed. Similarly in our American democracy it can be seen that our middle class is shrinking as our top 1% owns more more and they become wealthy off the labor of the middle and lower classes. The only difference is because we have a free-market we claim that anyone has the opportunity to become part of the top 1% as opposed to the elitist in an authoritarian regime. In practice the ability to achieve that top bracket is nearly impossible.
The truth is in order to truly separate an authoritarian regime from a democracy similar to the one in the US is to expand the voice of people who do not have the influence of wealth. Similar to a parliamentary democracy where each individual voice has a contribution and it's not a majority win all environment.
In democracy, the people are the primary agent for reaching decisions but in authoritarian regimes the leaders want to maintain their control and do not encourage mass participation of the people. Authoritarian regimes are totalitarian regimes. In democracies the laws are defined and in authoritarian laws are vague and contradictory. Democracies have a limit of the number of terms that can be served and authoritarian have not competitive elections to refresh the leadership thus their leaders may stay in position until they are overthrown. As stated in A Comparative Introduction, page 43, "we should view democracy as a system that is flexible, rather than fixed; that responds to developments, rather than just imposing itself on them." In regards to authoritarian rule, A Comparative Introduction, page 59, "Most non-democracies are authoritarian, rather than totalitarian. That is, the rulers seek to maintain their control (and increase their wealth) by limiting mass participation, rather than by mobilizing the population. Seems to me that democracy is a better regime. With a democracy you may not always get your choice but at least you have one and once a person is in office they cannot necessarily impose their choices or will over the people. There are a lot of steps that must be taken for change to take place. Democracy doesn't allow for dictatorship as I feel authoritarian regimes lead towards.
Delete1. What are some of the essential differences between democracies and authoritarian regimes?
ReplyDeleteDemocracies and Authoritarians are two extremely different types of governments. A major difference is that in democracies the people have the power and in Authoritarian governments the leader has the power. Democracies are built on the principle that the people are in charge of picking and choosing their leaders. Democracies are focused around the development and enrichment of the country for their people. In Authoritarian governments leaders are more focused of their control of power and how to keep it. Their leaders try to control what the public is told as a way to try and maintain total power over the country.
I agree, Democracies and Authoritarian regimes are very different. The power distribution, election method, the overall purpose, and how they maintain order are extremely different between both Democracies and Authoritarian regimes, but not as extreme as totalitarianism, another form of authoritarianism. In Authoritarian regimes, the leader or small group are very powerful, but they need to build and maintain alliances with other power holders. During election, Authoritarian regimes do not give choices. They hold elections to show unity in the regimes. Otherwise, elections do not take place at all. Also, in order to maintain order, authoritarian regimes use force or threats to use force. With democracies, orderly and non-violent protest are legal, but force will be used to restrain the disorderly.
Delete4. How does political culture differ from political ideology?
ReplyDeleteGenerally speaking, while political ideology and political culture are both seen as a viewpoint on how the government should function and interact with the people, there is one major difference.
While political culture is a viewpoint shared by many, a political ideology is chosen by an individual. Political culture is usually a belief that is widely agreed upon by a society of people, such as the American cultural concepts of personal freedoms and civil rights. While these things can and may be a part of an individual's ideology, they are also a large piece of American political culture. The individual who shares this political culture agrees with his society that these things are important to uphold, but his ideology may differ on how it is accomplished.
"Culture can influence how the political game is played - the rituals, the moves, the language," (Hague & Harrop, 94). Ideologies are more of a "blueprint for a just and rational society" (Hague & Harrop, 17). So basically, our political culture is what we're born into; the things we hold dear as a people, and our political ideologies are how we decide to promote them. As I mentioned before, as Americans we all have certain cultural beliefs about our government and what it should represent, but some may follow a more conservative ideology and others may follow a more liberal one. We all agree on the Constitution, what it stands for and what it contains, but we don't necessarily agree on the translation of or the execution of the concepts within it.
It helps me a lot to think of political ideology as the two primary political parties as the examples. The parties are a choice. People look at both parties and choose which one they believe fits their ideology the most. Stating that political culture is something that you are born into also helps me remember the difference. Ideology is not the case. One of America's chief political culture idea is freedom. An individual's ideology would determine how much freedom do people have a right to in specific cases.
DeleteWhat are some of the essential differences between democracies and authoritarian regimes?
ReplyDeleteThere are many differences between Authoritarian and Democracy governments. To me there are three main essential differences between these two governments they are; Power of government, Civil liberties and rights, and Rule of law.
Democratic governments are designed to weaken the power of that the federal government would have and ensure the rights of its citizens. Most democratic governments present a constitution that limits the governments powers. There is not just one ruler in a democracy. The government is made up of elected officials who are elected from the hoi polloi. And have set terms that they may serve. Authoritarian Governments seek or have full political control over its people and has complete authority. Usually Authoritarian governments are run by one person but sometimes a small group of people will run the government (class Notes)
The next difference is civil liberties and rights. Democracies have rights and liberties that are protected but the constitution. And these rights are based on individualism and are protected in turn by social contracts. While in Authoritarian governments rights and liberties are either not given or practiced within the government. Thus allowing the government full control of it people. The government makes decision based on the interests of the state rather than the people.
The last one, that i am going to talk about, is the rule of law. In democratic governments both the government and the people are under the rule of law. The laws of the country are based on the state's constitution. On the other hand authoritarian governments rely on ideology and religion for moral authority and the government has full political, moral and legal authority in the state.
In conclusion democracies focus on the rights, liberties and representations of citizens. while authoritarian governments process all the powers and rights and have free control of the state
Most Authoritarian governments rule through fear such as chili during its military rulership. The ruler ruled through fear of another civil war and reminders of what was before his rule. And demonstrated his power as ruler to prevent people from standing up. That was until the US forced a state wide vote si or no (yes or no) on whether or not to keep a dictatorship. The dictator relied on fear to convince the citizens to vote yes while others used hope to persuade individuals to vote no. The dictator also had members of the no campaign arrested. In my opinion there is also a lot of unrest associated in authoritarian governments
1. What are some of the essential differences between democracies and authoritarian regime?
ReplyDeleteWithin a democratic state, there is one person who represents the state in its entirety and government is limited. An example, would be the United States whose government functions off of a separation of powers between the Legislature, Judicial, and Executive branches. Democratic states also hold elections for their head representatives that are free and fair. This meaning, people have a right to express their opinion and choose who they believe to be best fit for the position.
On the contrary, Authoritarian regime is the complete opposite. Rulers in these types of states are the law and nothing limits them. These power hungry individuals control certain aspects of the country. For example, many Authoritarian states have a heavy control over the media and what type of messages it can display to the rest of society. Members outside the government are not allowed to vote or have a say when choosing a leader. In fact, political participation is either limited or discouraged, according to Hauge and Harrop, Chapter 1. Examples of Authoritarian Regimes, include; governments with military leaders, dictators, etc.
A spin off of Authoritarian Regimes, is a totalitarian state. Within these states government had total or complete control over all of society. Government leaders typically have a certain ideology, that they wish to force upon its societal members. Two great examples of this ruling type would be Communism and Fascism. Both Russian and Italy are two more specific examples of the governing types under an Authoritarian rule.
Hello Andrea! I really like your definitions and details. I think your writing clear and easy to understand. You portrayed the two as exact opposites. What is your take on countries that fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum?
Delete1. What are some of the essential differences between democracies and authoritarian regimes?
ReplyDeleteOn page 9 chapter one of Hague it talks about both democracies and authoritarian regime. The two are very different. Democracies have limited government that operate through a framework that is accepted for political competition. Elections are free and fair to the people. The people of that area had the say so of who they want to elect. If gives the people the power they deserve.
With authoritarian regime is move of a controlled dealing. Also on page 9 of Hague it talks about how the ruler at the top is constrained by other powerful people. Such as land owners and military and religious leaders. So the difference is that here it isn’t such as a fair way to elect power. And the people with money or other assets will always have a say so in things.
I understand what you are saying here, but there are some similarities between a democracy and an authoritarian regime in what is being said here. You say that leaders are looking for the people with money to help them stay in power. That can be said to be happening in the United States when election season is upon us. Politicians when they are doing their respective campaigns look for financial donors and try to shift there views and campaign in the position of the donors liking. How is this any different from authoritarian leaders going to military and religious leaders to help them stay in power?
DeleteI like what you have to say here. The way you have written this, lets me easily see which is the better option of the two. We know that Authoritarian rule is extremely strict compared to a democracy. The individuals in these strict regimes are limited as to what they can and cannot do. The government has control over anything they way. As I mentioned in my post, regarding Authoritarian Regime, some countries control the media and what they can display to society. I think that this chart does a really good job at comparing the two.
Delete1. What are some of the essential differences between democracies and authoritarian regimes?
ReplyDeleteIn democracy, the people are the primary agent for reaching decisions but in authoritarian regimes the leaders want to maintain their control and do not encourage mass participation of the people. Authoritarian regimes are totalitarian regimes. In democracies the laws are defined and in authoritarian laws are vague and contradictory. Democracies have a limit of the number of terms that can be served and authoritarian have not competitive elections to refresh the leadership thus their leaders may stay in position until they are overthrown. As stated in A Comparative Introduction, page 43, "we should view democracy as a system that is flexible, rather than fixed; that responds to developments, rather than just imposing itself on them." In regards to authoritarian rule, A Comparative Introduction, page 59, "Most non-democracies are authoritarian, rather than totalitarian. That is, the rulers seek to maintain their control (and increase their wealth) by limiting mass participation, rather than by mobilizing the population. Seems to me that democracy is a better regime. With a democracy you may not always get your choice but at least you have one and once a person is in office they cannot necessarily impose their choices or will over the people. There are a lot of steps that must be taken for change to take place. Democracy doesn't allow for dictatorship as I feel authoritarian regimes lead towards.
It will be a generalization to label authoritarian regimes as totalitarian since totalitarian is an extreme non-democratic form of authoritarianism that wants explicit control and support of a supreme leader in both politics and the private life of citizens. While all totalitarian government will be a type of authoritarian rule, not all authoritarian rule is totalitarian and often is more moderate, operating in unspoken limits and group control instead of individual control. (Hague and Harrop pg 59)
DeleteThe lines between the authoritarianism and democracy start to converge the more moderate they become. Democracy is looked at as a government for the people, ruled by the people but in modern democracy it is a government ruled by a small group of individuals that represent or exercise the will of the people with little or indirect influence from the people. Authoritarian leaders although not often elected are in their own twisted way still convinced they are serving the best interest of the people they govern even if it is at the cost of personal freedoms of citizens which in many ways we forfeit even under democratic rule.
Paul Kagame of Rowanda has been sitting as president since 2000 and it is an authoritarian rule that host elections even if it is flawed elections. https://intpolicydigest.org/2017/08/08/paul-kagame-what-makes-for-a-tolerable-dictator/
I mention him because he is a great example of an authoritarian that has taken a war torn impoverished country and repaired it from the brink of destruction. My opinion is that depending on the state of the country determines what political system they will benefit most from. In war driven, impoverished, or depleted countries an authoritarian regime could make more sense to bring back stability and infrastructure before transitioning into a democratic government.
ReplyDeleteAn authoritarian's main concern is to stay in power. This power includes control over jobs natural resources and access to money making opportunities (Hague and Harrop, p 61). One way in which they sustain their power is through controlling elections. Hague and Harrop mention on page 208 that elections tend to be controlled by the existing Authority and there may be some opposition victories but not enough to have an overall effect. They mentioned that elections "play an important role in confirming the authority of the ruler and there is nothing free and fair about the elections like in a liberal democracy" (P 209). One reason why authoritarian rulers want to maintain their power is to increase their wealth (Hague and Harrop, p 59). Some of the methods that are used in order to maintain that power include control in the military similar to North Korea, controlling the media similar to Russia, and Corruption and government with the elite business owners and wealthy people.
Although our political culture rejects the benefits of an authoritarian's concern for power, it is actually a source of security and stability for the country. If we look at Iraq before we invaded the state, it was an authoritarian ruled country by Saddam Hussein and the violent opposition was controlled by the leadership. It was the destruction of the regime that led to extremist groups rising and the continued need for military control in the country. To attempt to change a political culture overnight because of a disagreement over the power concern of the leadership is to disregard how that need to remain in power may be what keeps the country afloat and the citizens at peace.
4. How does political culture differ from political ideology?
ReplyDeletePolitical culture is the overall pattern in society of beliefs, attitudes and values towards the political system. Ideology is a system of collectively held beliefs and attitudes advocating a pattern of social arrangements. Political culture is broader and more societal, but more applicable. It is used more than ideology in understanding the role of beliefs and attitudes in politics. Political culture is most often studied from a behavioral which actually goes against what political culture consists of. Unlike ideology, culture is transmitted by socialization process. Political culture is constituted by three main elements, cognition, values, and emotional commitment.
Hague & Harrop, Political Science: A Comparative Introduction, ch. 6
2. What are authoritarian leaders mainly concerned in their political rule?
ReplyDeleteAuthoritarian leaders are most concerned with keeping themselves in power and limiting all competition. It states, In chapter one of Hague and Harrow's Political Science: A Comparative Introduction, "Elections may not take place at all, as in military regimes; or else the choice may be artificially restricted." They may even restrict large populations of their society from participating politically. Even when other parties are aloud they have to take a subservient position to the party in power. (10) Russia is a good example of this, even though they have elections they are not a liberal democracy where freedom of expression and association are respected.
Do you think this is a healthy form of government for the people? I feel that this could be fine if they just keep to themselves and just limit competition. I think when it gets more complicated is the point you brought up about preventing certain people from participating in society, that is when it is not okay. Other than that, your example of Russia is interesting and gives perspective to a real country, what are examples of other countries?
DeleteHello Mallory! I am on the fence about authoritarian rule. I believe it is possible to have a more authoritarian government and not destroy the autonomy of the people. Suleiman I of the Ottoman empire was ahead of the times in education, criminal laws and appropriate taxation but, he was still definitely "in charge" of his nation. Also the Persian empire during the time of the Spartans had all but, eliminated slavery, spent large amounts of money on infrastructure (like mail service and roads) and had religious freedoms. Though if you are asking if I want to live in a authoritative government, no, not really but, that may have something to do with my political culture and how it descends from the political ideologies of the western world.
DeleteAs for other countries, North Korea is authoritative (and truly totalitarian) and China is still considered though but, they have adopted some more autonomous practices for their people as well as Saudi Arabia. I hope those are good examples.
Differences between authoritarian and democratic forms of government are easily identified in their respective approaches to elections. A major source of authoritarian elections are from communist states apart of the Soviet Union. Unlike democratic governments “elections in communist states made little pretence of offering choice” (Hague and Harrop 208). Some communist states eventually added a small amount of choice to their elections by letting voters vote on a couple of potential leaders. These politicians were still all from the ruling party which marginally better but in my opinion does not even seem worth it. Another major difference is how complex elections are in democracies compared to authoritarian regimes. In authoritarian regime elections a “candidate was simply presented to the electorate for ritual endorsement.” (Hague and Harrop 208) Compared to that of democracies where there are plurality and majority systems, proportional systems, and parallel systems all of which have two to three more systems that make up those categories. Then once you get down to a specific sub-system such as a single-member plurality system, which the U.S. uses, an individual country might approach that system differently by having an electoral college for example.
ReplyDeleteWhat are some of the essential differences between democracies and authoritarian regimes?
ReplyDeleteAuthoritarianism is the system in which a small group of individuals exercises power over the state without being responsible to the public. This is as far different from democracy as it gets since Democracy is political power exercised by the people. Outside of definition some other key differences lie with how authoritarian regimes limit freedoms such as speech, privacy, travel, and media while democracy supports the expression of those rights. Democracy practices muti party systems that are chosen in some form of election process but authoritarianism has one legal party and is often chosen by force or military coup. Opposition to leadership is met harshly.
Differences do not always lead to negative outcomes. Non-democratic rule such as communist actually create more economic equality. (Patrick H O’neil pg.165) also bureaucratic authoritarianism has also been tied to rapid modernization and industrialization.