Authoritarian state regime. Political regimes

Now authoritarianism is understood as a political regime in which unlimited power is concentrated in the hands of one person or a group of people. Such power does not allow political opposition, but preserves the autonomy of the individual and society in all non-political spheres.

Authoritarian regimes persist with the help of an apparatus of coercion and violence. Power, obedience and order are valued under an authoritarian regime more than freedom, consent, and people's participation in political life. In such conditions, ordinary citizens are forced to pay taxes, obey laws without personal participation in their discussion.

The weaknesses of authoritarianism are the complete dependence of politics on the position of the head of state or a group of top leaders, the lack of opportunities for citizens to prevent political adventures or arbitrariness, and the limited political expression of public interests.

Democratic institutions existing in authoritarian states have no real force in society. The political monopoly of one party supporting the regime is legalized; the activity of other political parties and organizations is excluded. The principles of constitutionality and legality are denied. The separation of powers is ignored. There is a strict centralization of all state power. The leader of the ruling authoritarian party becomes the head of state and government. Representative bodies at all levels are becoming a backdrop for authoritarian rule.

An authoritarian regime ensures the power of individual or collective diktat by any means, including direct violence. At the same time, the authoritarian government does not interfere in those areas of life that are not directly related to politics. Economy, culture, interpersonal relations can remain relatively independent, i.e. institutions function within a limited framework civil society.

The dignity of an authoritarian regime is its high ability to ensure political stability and public order, to mobilize public resources for solving certain problems, to overcome the resistance of political opponents, as well as the ability to solve progressive problems associated with the country's recovery from the crisis. Thus, authoritarianism was a desirable regime in a number of countries after World War II, against the background of acute economic and social contradictions that existed in the world.

Essence, signs and features of an authoritarian political regime

· Autocracy or a small number of power holders (monarch, dictator, military junta, oligarchic group);

· Lack of control of the government to the people, narrowed or reduced to naught the principles of election of state bodies and officials, accountability to their population;

· The principle of separation of powers is ignored, the head of state, the executive branch dominate, the role of representative bodies is limited;

· Monopolization of power and politics, prevention of real political opposition and competition (sometimes the absence of various political institutions may be a consequence of the immaturity of civil society or distrust of parties on the part of the population);

• refusal of total control over society, non-interference or limited interference in non-political spheres, primarily in the economy;

· Command, administrative methods dominate as methods of state administration, at the same time there is no terror, mass repressions are practically not used;

· The rights and freedoms of the individual are mainly proclaimed, but not really ensured (first of all, in the political sphere);

· The person is deprived of guarantees of security in relations with the authorities;

· Power structures are practically beyond the control of society and are sometimes used for political purposes.

At the same time, the absence of any attribute does not remove the stigma of authoritarianism from the regime, just as one cannot judge the authoritarian nature of the regime by one attribute. For this reason, the question of the political regime in the country is often controversial. There are no uniform criteria for authoritarianism.

Autocracy (from the Greek autokrateia - autocracy, autocracy) does not require a demonstration of loyalty on the part of the population, as under totalitarianism, the absence of open political confrontation is enough for it. However, the regime is merciless to manifestations of real political competition for power, to the actual participation of the population in decision-making on the most important issues of the life of society. Authoritarianism suppresses basic civil rights.

In order to retain unlimited power in its hands, the authoritarian regime circulates the elites not through the competition of candidates in the elections, but by co-optation (volitional introduction) of them into the governing structures. Due to the fact that the process of transferring power in such regimes is carried out not through the procedures for replacing leaders established by law, but by force, these regimes are not legitimate. However, despite the lack of support from the people, autocracies can exist for a long time and quite successfully. They are capable of effectively solving strategic tasks, despite their illegitimacy. An example of such effective in terms of implementing economic and social reforms can be the authoritarian regimes in Chile, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Argentina, countries of the Arab East.

2 types of authoritarian regimes

1. Traditional absolutist monarchies (examples: Ethiopia before 1947, Nepal before 2007, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and others).

Traditional absolutist monarchies are regimes in which there is no separation of powers, political competition, power is concentrated in the hands of a narrow group of individuals, the ideology of an aristocratic class dominates.

2. Traditional authoritarian regimes of the oligarchic type. Typical for Latin American countries (examples: Guatemala, Nicaragua before 1979 and others). Typically, economic and political power under such regimes is concentrated in the hands of a few powerful families. One leader replaces another through a coup or falsification of the election results. The elite is closely connected with the church and the military establishment (for example, the regime in Guatemala).

3. The hegemonic authoritarianism of the new oligarchy was created as a regime that expressed the interests of the comprador bourgeoisie, i.e. that part of the bourgeoisie of economically backward, dependent countries, which mediated between foreign capital and the national market. Such regimes existed during the presidency of Marcos in the Philippines (1972-1985), Tunisia, Cameroon, etc.

4. Countries of "socialist orientation" with all the peculiarities of the perception of socialism, its types, egalitarian traditions of their own culture, and so on (examples: Algeria, Burma, Guinea, Mozambique, Venezuela, Tanzania, Belarus and others).

5. Military regimes (examples: the regime of G. A. Nasser in Egypt, J. Peron in Argentina, authoritarian regimes in Iraq, Peru and others).

They are of three types:

a) possessing a strictly dictatorial, terrorist nature and personal nature of power (for example, the regime of I. Amin in Uganda);

b) military juntas carrying out structural reforms (for example, the regime of General Pinochet in Chile);

c) one-party regimes that existed in Egypt under G.A. Nasser, in Peru under H. Peron, etc.

It should be highlighted as another type of authoritarianism theocratic regimes in which political power is concentrated in the hands of clergy. An example of this type is the regime of Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

Military regimes- a kind of authoritarian, in which power belongs either to the military, or in reality is exercised by the top of the military behind the "facade" of a civilian government. A characteristic feature of military regimes is the strong personalization of power. These are the regimes of General Zia ul Haq in Pakistan, Amin in Uganda. Military or "praetorian" regimes most often arise as a result of coups d'état.

The establishment of military dictatorships, as a rule, is accompanied by the abolition of the previous constitution, the dissolution of parliament, the complete prohibition of any opposition forces, and the concentration of legislative and executive power in the hands of the military council. Similar regimes existed in many countries in Africa, the East, and Latin America. Distinctive feature military dictatorships is a wide-ranging terrorist activity that is carried out by the army, police and intelligence agencies. Typically, military regimes fail to provide economic efficiency. They are characterized by chronic inflation, economic uncontrollability, and political corruption. More often than not, military regimes fail to mobilize the masses to resolve social problems, to secure support for themselves, to solve the problems associated with the institutionalization and legitimation of power. Political analysts note that the weakest points of this regime, along with inefficiency and illegitimacy, is the administrative style of decision-making.

A kind of military regime is considered authoritarian-bureaucratic regime... Its features were analyzed in detail by G. O'Donnell. From his point of view, power under an authoritarian bureaucratic regime is exercised by a bloc consisting of three political forces: a bureaucracy dominated by technocrats; the national bourgeoisie, which controls the largest national companies and is at the same time connected with international capital, and the military.

Competitive oligarchy(the modern oligarchic regime) is characterized by sufficient openness and legitimacy, while maintaining a monopoly on the power of the most powerful economic clans. It is characterized by such political institutions as parliament, elections, parties. However, behind the facade of democratic institutions lies the power of the most influential national economic groups, whose interests are taken into account in the first place by the political system. An example of a modern oligarchic regime is the government in Colombia, where since 1957 two parties - the conservative and the liberal - agreed on the distribution of government posts and the election of a certain presidential candidate. The social basis of the modern oligarchic regime is socially and politically passive strata of the population.

Populist, or mobilization, the regime is based on the rule of a single party, proclaiming its goal of modernization. Such a party is usually led by a charismatic leader. Unlike totalitarianism, the populist regime relies not on ideology, but on nationalism. It relies more on ethnic than on social groups. This type of regime is characterized by the mobilization of the masses aimed at maintaining a national leader. The means of legitimizing power used by the populist regime are: manipulation of a plebiscite; involving the people in politics through mass demonstrations, demonstrations, rallies of support; exaltation of "little people"; rallying society in the face of "international imperialism" and cosmopolitan capitalism. The authorities are inclined to seek support in the middle strata, which do not feel sympathy for the oligarchy. A specific feature of the populist regime - the strengthening of statist principles in economic, social and spiritual life - reflects the paternalistic expectations of the widest popular masses. Vivid examples are the regimes of Vargas in Brazil, Nasser in Egypt, Gaddafi in Libya.

Many political scientists have recently begun to distinguish development authoritarianism, the main features of which are, in contrast to the "traditional", not the conservation of existing social relations, but the promotion and stimulation of social and economic modernization. The degree of authoritarianism is determined by the need to preserve the unity and integrity of society with the growth of conflicts caused by modernization. The state becomes the initiator of changes in economic and social life taking place under its control. An example of this kind of regime can be modern China, South Korea of the 1970s-1980s, Thailand, etc.

3. The history of the existence of authoritarianism in various countries

Historically, authoritarianism has existed in various forms in the most different eras and in various countries (for example, ancient Greek and Eastern despotism and tyranny - Persia, Sparta, many other feudal absolutist regimes, etc.). His theory was first developed by ultra-conservative and reactionary theorists early XIX v. as a response to the French Revolution and the socialist movements by J. de Maistre and L. de Bonald. With the development of industrial society, the idea of authoritarianism began to take on the shades of a constructive political ideology. The counterrevolutionary (in J. de Maistre's) idea of order has lost its monarchical orientation, the concept of absolutist authoritarianism has disappeared: the absolute power of the king, independent of people, is the reason for politics; its ministers (apparatus of power) are means; a society of subjects who obey is a consequence (L. de Bonald).

In the 19th century, authoritarianism became a permanent and important trend in German political thought and was supplemented by the ideas of national and state unity, which it is intended to realize. By the end of the century, authoritarianism came to be seen as a means of powerful national and social mobilization and management from above of the state-building process (G. Traitschke). The Spaniard D. Cortez saw in an authoritarian political order that ensures the sanctity of obedience, a condition for the cohesion of the nation, state and society. O. Spengler also believed that, unlike liberalism, which generates anarchy, authoritarianism fosters discipline and establishes the necessary hierarchy in society. Many scientists and politicians consider this type of government (as, for example, I. Ilyin, in the form of an "authoritarian-educating dictatorship") as the most optimal form of political support for the transition of backward countries to modern democracy.

In the first half of the twentieth century, the authoritarian doctrine of the far-right French ideologist and politician S. Morras is indicative, for whom industrialization, the penetration of the state into society, high mobilization of the people as a means of implementing politics are objective and inevitable conditions of authoritarianism. The authoritarianism of the 20th century in such interpretations began increasingly to take on a nationalist anti-democratic character, associated with the struggle against internal and external enemies. Fascism brought the theory and practice of authoritarianism to extreme totalitarian forms.

In the post-war period, new ideas appeared about elite and technocratic authoritarianism, in which the role of authoritarian rule is assigned to the highest administration of the state, which has high professional competence superior to other levels of the political system. Authoritarianism ultimately became a form of solving political problems (reforms, transformations, restructuring) from above, by the forces of power, and in this sense it turned out to be very vulnerable and dependent on the attitude of society to the actions of the authoritarian government, before the choice: to democratize the regime and get the support of the people, or tighten up the policy and move to coercion and dictatorship. A more widespread version of authoritarianism is a regime of slow development, established hierarchical relations, repressive control, and economic stagnation.

In its most general form, authoritarianism has entrenched the image of a system of tough political rule, constantly using coercive and coercive methods to regulate basic social processes. Due to this, the most important political institutions in society are the disciplinary structures of the state: its law enforcement agencies (army, police, special services), as well as the corresponding means of ensuring political stability (prisons, concentration camps, preventive detention, group and mass repressions, mechanisms of strict control for the behavior of citizens). With this style of ruling, the opposition is excluded not only from the sphere of decision-making, but also from political life in general. Elections or other procedures aimed at revealing public opinion, aspirations and requests of citizens are either absent or are used purely formally.

By blocking ties with the masses, authoritarianism (with the exception of its charismatic forms of government) loses the ability to use popular support to strengthen the ruling regime. However, a government that does not rely on an understanding of the needs of broad social circles, as a rule, turns out to be unable to create political orders that would express public needs. Focusing only on the narrow interests of the ruling stratum in the conduct of state policy, authoritarianism uses methods of patronage and control over its initiatives in relations with the population. Therefore, an authoritarian government is capable of providing only coercive legitimacy. But public support so limited in its capabilities narrows the possibilities for political maneuver, flexible and efficient management in the face of complex political crises and conflicts for the regime.

Stable disregard for public opinion, the formation of state policy without involving the public in most cases makes the authoritarian government incapable of creating any serious incentives for the social initiative of the population. True, due to forced mobilization, certain regimes (for example, Pinochet in Chile in the 70s) can, in short historical periods, give rise to high civil activity of the population. However, in most cases, authoritarianism destroys the initiative of the public as a source of economic growth and inevitably leads to a drop in the effectiveness of government, low economic performance of the authorities.

The narrowness of the social support of power, which relies on coercion and isolation of public opinion from the centers of power, is also manifested in the practical inaction of ideological tools. Instead of the systematic use of ideological doctrines that can stimulate public opinion, ensure the interested participation of citizens in political and social life, authoritarian ruling elites mainly use mechanisms aimed at concentrating their powers and intra-elite reconciliation of interests when making decisions. Because of this, behind-the-scenes deals, bribery, secret conspiracy and other technologies of shadow government become the main ways of harmonizing interests in the development of state policy.

An additional source of preservation of this type of government is the use by the authorities of certain features of mass consciousness, the mentality of citizens, religious and cultural-regional traditions, which, in general, indicate a fairly stable civil passivity of the population. It is mass civic passivity that serves as a source and prerequisite for the tolerance of the majority of the population towards the ruling group, as a condition for maintaining its political stability.

However, the systematic use of tough methods of political governance, the government's reliance on mass passivity does not exclude a certain activity of citizens and the preservation of some freedom of social action for their associations. The family, church, certain social and ethnic groups, as well as some social movements (trade unions) have their (albeit modest) prerogatives and opportunities to influence power and manifestations of activity. But even these social sources of the political system, acting under the strict control of the authorities, are not capable of generating any powerful party movements or causing a massive political protest. In such systems of government, there is potential rather than real opposition to the state system. The activities of opposition groups and associations more restrict the authorities in establishing full and absolute control over society, rather than trying to really adjust the goals and objectives of the government's political course.

Authoritarian regimes are formed, as a rule, as a result of coups d'etat or "creeping" concentration of power in the hands of leaders or individual intra-elite groups. The emerging type of formation and administration of power shows that the really ruling forces in society are small elite groups that exercise power either in the form of collective domination (for example, in the form of the power of a separate party, military junta), or in the form of a regime of autocracy of one or another , including a charismatic leader. Moreover, the personalization of the ruling regime in the guise of a particular rule is the most common form of organizing authoritarian orders.

But in any case, the main social support of an authoritarian regime, as a rule, are military groups ("siloviks") and the state bureaucracy. However, while effectively acting in order to strengthen and monopolize power, they are ill-adapted to ensure the functions of integration of the state and society, to ensure communication between the population and the authorities. The resulting distance between the regime and ordinary citizens tends to increase.

At present, transitional societies remain the most essential prerequisites for the emergence of authoritarian regimes. As A. Pshevorsky notes, "authoritarian temptations" in societies of this type are practically ineradicable. Awareness of everyday difficulties tempts many political forces "to do everything in a straightforward manner, in one shot, stop the squabble, replace politics with administration, anarchy with discipline, do everything rationally." For example, in modern Russian society, the propensity for authoritarian methods of government is constantly fueled by the loss of controllability of social transformations, the fragmentation of reforms, the presence of a sharp polarization of forces in the political market, the spread of radical forms of protest that threaten the integrity of society, as well as the lack of national unity, widespread conservative ideas, a massive desire to quickly achieve social efficiency.

4. Authoritarian regimes in the modern world.

Authoritarian regimes are very diverse. One of the types is a military dictatorial regime. Most of the countries of Latin America, South Korea, Portugal, Spain, Greece survived it. Another type is the theocratic regime, in which power is concentrated in the hands of a religious clan. Such a regime has existed in Iran since 1979. The constitutional-authoritarian regime is characterized by the concentration of power in the hands of one party with the formal existence of a multi-party system. This is the regime of modern Mexico. For a despotic regime, it is characteristic that the supreme leader relies on arbitrariness and informal clan and family structures. Another type is personal tyranny, in which power belongs to the leader and his strong institutions are absent (Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq until 2003, M. Gaddafi’s regime in modern Libya). Another category of authoritarian regimes is absolute monarchy (Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia).

The peculiarity of party regimes lies in the exercise of monopoly power by any party or political grouping, which does not necessarily formally represent the institution of the party. Most often these are one-party regimes, but they can also include the forms of government of aristocratic (Morocco, Nepal) or family (Guatemala) groups, as well as the rule of the first persons of the state with their close-knit political "teams" (Belarus). Usually such regimes are either established as a result of revolutions or imposed from outside (as, for example, in the post-war conditions in the countries of Eastern Europe, where communist regimes were established with the help of the USSR). But in some cases, regimes of this type may also represent the result of the evolution of a legitimate regime.

Military regimes are a fairly widespread variety of authoritarian regimes. They began to emerge after World War II in developing countries. This was the period of their liberation from colonial dependence and the formation of national states. The military was in traditional societies the most cohesive and enlightened social group capable of uniting society based on the idea of national self-determination. The behavior of the military after the seizure of power was different. In some countries, they removed the corrupt civilian political elite from power and pursued policies in the interests of the nation state (as, for example, in Indonesia, Taiwan). In other cases, the military themselves turned out to be executors of the will of more powerful financial groups and states (for example, most military regimes in Latin America were funded by the United States).

In modern times, military regimes tend to arise from coups, conspiracies and putsches. The largest number of examples of the establishment of military regimes were given by the countries of Latin America, Africa, as well as Greece, Pakistan, and Turkey. Such political orders are characterized by the suppression of a significant part of political and civil liberties, widespread corruption and internal instability. State resources are used mainly to suppress resistance, reduce the social activity of citizens. The set rules of the game are supported by threats and coercion, which does not exclude the use of physical violence.

Models of national authoritarianism arise as a result of the dominance of a national or ethnic group in an elite grouping. Currently, such systems are typical for a number of countries in the post-Soviet space (Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan). They have not yet acquired completeness, but they already clearly demonstrate a desire to create social and political advantages for representatives of one group of the population, to ethnize government bodies, to present the activity of other ethnic groups of the population as political opposition. In these countries, an unspoken policy of ousting foreign national groups is being pursued. At the same time, in a number of countries, certain circles of the opposition (mainly competitors in the ethnically dominant environment) are sliding towards the use of methods of political terror. The absence of many mechanisms conducive to either tightening the power of the ruling regime, or, on the contrary, maintaining the balance of political forces, causes particular instability, fraught with the possibility of a landslide development of events.

Corporate regimes personify the power of bureaucratic, oligarchic or shadow (informal, criminal) groups that combine power and property and, on this basis, control the decision-making process. The state becomes a refuge for forces that use the prerogatives of official bodies to protect their narrowly group interests. The economic basis of such a system of power is the ramified system of quotas in public administration, the authorization procedure for registering enterprises, and the lack of control over the activities of civil servants.

The most common economic prerequisite for corporate authoritarianism is state-owned enterprise, which generates huge personal income for officials. State institutions with formal rights cannot resist these groups that control decision-making and devalue the legitimate channels for the participation of the population in power. Corporate reallocation of resources tends to exclude political parties and other specialized interest groups from the decision-making process.

In the 1990s. in Russian society, an oligarchic-corporate type of political system has developed, in which representatives of the richest circles of society, big business, had influence on the levers of power. According to the official recognition of the authorities, shadow, criminal structures controlled more than half of the state economy and the private sector. The corporate principles of relations between elite groups have qualitatively reduced the influence on the government of ideologically oriented associations (parties) representing the interests of various broad strata of the population.

Regimes of personal power (India under I. Gandhi, Spain under Franco, Romania under Ceausescu) personalize all political relations in the eyes of public opinion. This can lead to a civil dictatorship characterized by the sole authority of a civilian. Typically, such a person becomes a national leader or the leader of an "interest group" who came to power through a coup d'etat. He can either pursue a relatively independent political course, relying on his own charisma, or serve the interests of his supporters. The tough nature of government, combined with certain traditions of uncritical perception of power, often gives an economic effect, leads to the activation of the population and an increase in the legitimacy of the regime. However, such a system of power often provokes political terror from the opposition.

Authoritarian regimes should not be seen as a vehicle for expressing minority interests. Modern authoritarian regimes use a fairly wide palette of resources, and not only the means of coercion and political repression. Their feature is a noticeable reduction specific gravity indoctrination and political coercion. Authoritarianism often uses economic incentives: creating opportunities for increasing prosperity for broad strata of society, pursuing effective social policy. The practical effectiveness of a number of authoritarian regimes (for example, in South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan) allowed them not only to solve the problems of technological modernization, to significantly improve the standard of living of the population, but also to attract broad layers of society to their side.

In this regard, it can be noted that authoritarian regimes have significant mobilization and orientation capabilities due to the ability to concentrate resources on strategic directions of development. Achieving economic and social efficiency, authoritarian regimes form a democratic system of values, citizens' interest in political and civil rights and freedoms, the need for freedom of information, independence of thought, intolerance of arbitrariness and violence.

In the late 1980s - early 1990s. scientific and political interest in authoritarianism has grown significantly in connection with the collapse of the predominantly totalitarian political systems in the Soviet Union and a number of Eastern European countries. The attempts of many of them, including Russia, to quickly, in the spirit of the Bolshevik "cavalry attacks", introduce democracy without the presence of the necessary social prerequisites for it, were unsuccessful and entailed numerous destructive consequences.

It became obvious that in order to carry out radical social reforms, a government with a high ability to ensure political stability and public order, mobilize public resources, and overcome the resistance of political opponents is needed.

CONCLUSION

In modern conditions, “pure” authoritarianism, which is not based on active mass support and some democratic institutions, can hardly be a tool for progressive reform of society. He is able to turn into a criminal dictatorial regime of personal power.

Per last years a lot of non-democratic (totalitarian and authoritarian) regimes have disintegrated or transformed into democratic republics or states on a democratic basis. The general drawback of non-democratic political systems is that they are not under the control of the people, which means that the nature of their relationship with citizens depends primarily on the will of the rulers. In past centuries, the possibility of arbitrariness on the part of authoritarian rulers was significantly restrained by the traditions of government, the relatively high education and upbringing of monarchs and aristocracy, their self-control based on religious and moral codes, as well as the opinion of the church and the threat of popular uprisings. In the modern era, these factors have either disappeared altogether, or their effect has greatly weakened. Therefore, only a democratic form of government can reliably curb power, guarantee the protection of citizens from state arbitrariness. For those peoples who are ready for freedom and responsibility, respect for the law and human rights, democracy really provides the best opportunities for individual and social development, the realization of humanistic values: freedom, equality, justice, social creativity.

Bibliography

1. Tsygankov A. Modern political regimes: structure, typology, dynamics ", the course" Theory of Politics ", developed in 2002, was read to students of the Baltic State Technical University" Voenmech ", studying in the specialty" Political Science ", until 2008 ( http://nicbar.narod.ru/theoria_politiki_lekcii.htm)

3. Politics theory: Textbook / Auth.-comp. N.A. Baranov, G.A. Pikalov. In 3 hours St. Petersburg: BSTU Publishing House, 2003. (www.fictionbook.ru)

5. Baranov N.A. Evolution of views on populism in modern political science. - SPb., 2001.

6. Baranov N.A. Populism as a political activity. - SPb., 2002.

7. Gadzhiev K.S. Political Science: Textbook. - M., 1995.

8. Course of Political Science: Textbook. - 2nd ed., Rev. and add. - M., 2002.

9. Malko A.V. Political and legal life of Russia: topical problems: Textbook. - M., 2000.

10. Mukhaev R.T. Political science: a textbook for students of law and humanitarian faculties. - M., 2000.

11. Foundations of political science. Textbook for higher educational institutions. Part 2. - M., 1995.

12. Political science. Textbook for universities / Edited by M.A. Vasilik. - M., 1999.

13. Political science. encyclopedic Dictionary... - M., 1993.

14. Soloviev A.I. Political Science: Political Theory, Political Technologies: A Textbook for University Students. - M., 2001.

Sumbatyan Yu. G. Political regimes in the modern world: a comparative analysis. Study guide. - M., 1999.

Free electronic encyclopedia "Wikipedia".

Unlike a totalitarian regime, an authoritarian regime usually wears softer character. Certain rights and freedoms of citizens and elements of civil society operate. Limited activities of certain parties and organizations that are not dangerous for the authorities are possible. There is no total control over society: the state, in particular, avoids interference in non-political spheres, especially in the economy. It is even possible that elections will be held (admittedly, not free, controlled, often formal, or even with rigging the results) and the activities of a parliament obedient to dictators. Finally, massive repressions in the country are also optional.

In the same time authoritarian state are distinguished by such undemocratic signs, how (1) unlimited power (dictatorship) of one person (leader, monarch, military leader, president) or a group of persons (say, a military junta); (2) non-admission (or strict limitation and control) of political opposition 2; (3) strict control of the political sphere of society (state security, enforcement of the established order, foreign policy, defense); (4) reliance on force and compulsion to obey the authorities (on the army and other "power" structures); (5) from the wandering of citizens from real influence on the government and the restriction of their rights and freedoms.

An authoritarian regime most often arises at critical moments in the life of society, when it is faced with the need for national liberation and revival or radical reforms. Indeed, authoritarianism is sometimes an effective means of social transformation. No wonder the political systems based on it are the most widespread in the history of mankind.

In this regard, social scientists often cite a very revealing example of Chile. In the early 1970s, this backward South American republic was really threatened by a communist dictatorship (like the one that has been tormenting Cuba for almost 40 years). Having carried out a military coup in 1973, the then army general Augusto Pinochet(born in 1915) established an authoritarian regime in the country. Moreover, thousands of people suffered, but the onset of even more terrible disasters, always accompanying communist regimes, was averted. In addition, the Chilean economy, having received a life-giving vaccination by the market and private business, went up the hill relatively quickly. This allowed the dictator in 1989 to hold free elections and transfer power to the civilian government. Thus, in Chile, authoritarian methods rid society of communism and contributed to the development of the economy, market and democracy. Today this republic is one of the leading industrial countries in Latin America.

If we take our fatherland now, then Russia, according to a number of researchers, at all times, to one degree or another, she “sinned” by authoritarianism. Striking examples- the reign of the king Ivan IV the Terrible(1530-1584), emperors Peter the Great(1672-1725), Nicholas(1796-1855) and others. It is no coincidence that some believe that the Russian people by their very nature need authoritarian power and love authoritarian leaders.

However, usually an authoritarian state is of a temporary transitional nature, with the prospect of developing either into totalitarianism or into democracy. So, an authoritarian regime Fidel Castro(born in 1927), established in the aforementioned Cuba in 1959, later chose a communist orientation and grew into totalitarianism. In other states (South Korea, Argentina, Chile, etc.), authoritarianism has gradually evolved into democracy.

The term A. originated from lat. auctoritas - power, influence. The authoritarian type of political regime is softer and more humane than the totalitarian one. A. is usually characterized as something in between, intermediate between totalitarianism and democracy.

Authoritarianism is a type of political regime that is softer than totalitarianism, but at the same time based on the dictatorship of a sole ruler or ruling group with the minimum participation of the people, trampling on the rights and freedoms of man and society.

Under A., the control of the state over society is no longer all-embracing; there are some autonomy of society from the state.

If totalitarian regimes are the lot of the past, then A. for a number of reasons persists today.

Traditions in the country, in society, subservient moods, the habit of strong power;

Religious reasons, peculiarities of religion (for example, Asian countries with Islam, China with Confucianism);

Economic characteristics, market weakness;

Social - lack of civil society;

Lack of control of the authorities by citizens and society;

Power is concentrated in the hands of one group;

Strict regulation of the spheres of public life with the existence of some autonomy (in the non-political sphere);

The presence of a significant repressive apparatus, somewhat less than under totalitarianism;

Unanimity in the state and society;

Significant centralization of power.

Lack of the possibility of a non-violent change of power;

Inheritance and co-optation as the main ways of recruiting the political elite

Electoral terror, and under totalitarianism - massive. Under authoritarianism, a citizen is not subject to repression if he is an active supporter of the regime.

Examples of countries with an authoritarian political regime are Brunei, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Spain under Franco, Chile under Pinochet. Some researchers see authoritarian features in the Soviet Union after the death of Stalin until the collapse, especially vividly - under L.I. Brezhnev.

Political regime in modern Russia

Formally, according to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the political regime in our country is democracy. Moreover, this is a democracy according to the Western model, it is a bourgeois democracy, since the same Constitution recognizes and secures for citizens the right of private property. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, we abandoned the model of Soviet democracy.

Today, apparently, many features of democracy have appeared in the political regime of Russia: elections on an alternative basis, with most of the positions of power in the state being elected - from deputies of various levels to the Head of State). Referendums are being held, a multi-party system is emerging, freedom of the media, political opposition, the separation of powers, the removal of falsity from officials and deputies (impeachment), etc. have become real.

At the same time, all these institutions are largely formal in nature, they are only a cover for democracy, but not democracy. Elections can be without choice, opposition is not to the President, but the opposition of the President, real coming to power, for example, of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, is impossible.

The party system, possessing some signs of a multi-party system, cannot be unconditionally classified as a multi-party system, since not one party other than the “party of power” can claim the post of President or Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation. The institution of impeachment is not really possible due to its multistage nature. The same can be said about the recall of deputies.

Freedom of speech is limited by the financial side and fear of criticism of the higher authorities.

As a result, the majority of the population over the years of the so-called. reforms, there was disillusionment with democracy and reform; we have lost the national idea and have not yet developed a new one; the bureaucratic apparatus grew and became equal in number to the apparatus of the entire USSR.

When we hear about an authoritarian political regime, most people perceive this concept as purely negative. It is customary to mix authoritarianism and totalitarianism. But are these concepts really the same? Or is there still a significant difference between them? Let's find out what constitutes an authoritarian regime.

Definition of the term

An authoritarian political regime is a practically unlimited form of power of one person or a group of persons, while retaining the appearance of some democratic institutions. Also, with him, part of the freedoms for the population in the economy, spiritual life or in another area may be preserved, if these freedoms do not pose a threat to the regime itself.

Classification of political regimes

In order to understand the place of authoritarianism among other political regimes, it is necessary to pay attention to their classification. There are many types of forms of government. Three types dominate among them: authoritarian, totalitarian, democratic political regimes. In addition, anarchy is separately distinguished, which is defined as anarchy.

A democratic regime in its ideal form is characterized by the maximum participation of the people in governing the state and in the turnover of power. The totalitarian system, on the contrary, is marked by the complete control of the authorities over all areas of life and activities of citizens, who, in turn, do not take part in solving state issues. Moreover, power is often actually usurped by one person or a group of people from a narrow circle.

An authoritarian regime is something between democratic and totalitarian. Many political scientists present it as a compromise version of these systems. We will talk about the features of authoritarianism and its differences from other political regimes further.

Differences between authoritarian and democratic regimes

The main difference between authoritarianism and democracy is that the people are actually removed from the government of the country. Elections and referendums, if they are held, are purely formal in nature, since their result is deliberately predetermined.

At the same time, under authoritarianism, pluralism can exist, that is, a multi-party system, as well as the preservation of democratic institutions that continue to function, which creates the illusion of the people governing the country. This is what makes authoritarian and democratic political regimes in common.

Differences between authoritarianism and totalitarianism

The main difference is that under authoritarianism, the basis of power is the personal qualities of a leader or a group of leaders who have managed to seize the levers of government. Totalitarianism, on the other hand, is based on ideology. Often, totalitarian leaders are nominated by the ruling elite, which can come to power even in a democratic way. Thus, under authoritarianism, the role of the leader is much higher than under totalitarianism. For example, an authoritarian regime can fall with the death of a leader, but a totalitarian system can only be ended by a general decline in the governance structure or by military intervention by a third party.

As mentioned above, the totalitarian and authoritarian regimes differ also in that the former often completely lacks democratic institutions, and under authoritarianism they can exist, although they are, by and large, decorative function... Also, an authoritarian regime, unlike a totalitarian one, can allow the functioning of various political parties, and even a moderate opposition. But, nevertheless, real forces capable of harming the ruling regime, both under authoritarianism and under totalitarianism, are prohibited.

In addition, these two systems are also united by the fact that they lack real democracy and the ability of the people to rule the state.

Signs of an authoritarian system

An authoritarian regime of power has a number of features that distinguish it from other political systems. It is they that make it possible to distinguish this type of government from other forms of government existing in the world. Below we will analyze the main features of an authoritarian regime.

One of the main features of this system is the form of government in the form of autocracy, dictatorship or oligarchy. This implies the actual government of one person or a limited group of people. Access of ordinary citizens to this group is either completely impossible or significantly limited. This actually means that the government will become beyond the control of the people. Even if national elections to government bodies do take place, they are purely nominal in nature, with a predetermined outcome.

An authoritarian regime is also distinguished by the monopolization of government by one person or a certain political force. This allows you to actually control and manage all branches of government - executive, legislative and judicial. More often than not, it is the representatives of the executive branch who usurp the functions of other structures. In turn, this fact leads to increased corruption at the top of society, since in fact the management and control bodies represent the same persons.

Signs of an authoritarian political regime are expressed in the absence of real opposition. The authorities may allow the presence of a “tame” opposition, which acts as a screen designed to testify to the democratic nature of society. But in fact, such parties, on the contrary, further strengthen the authoritarian regime, in fact, serving it. The same forces that are capable of really resisting the authorities are not allowed to participate in political struggle and are subject to repression.

There are signs of an authoritarian regime in the economic sphere as well. First of all, they are expressed in the control of people in power and their relatives over the largest enterprises in the country. In the hands of these people, not only political power is concentrated, but also the management of financial flows aimed at their personal enrichment. A person who has no connections in the highest circles, even with good business qualities, has no chance of becoming financially successful, since the economy is monopolized by those in power. However, these features of an authoritarian regime are not an obligatory attribute.

In turn, in an authoritarian society, the country's leadership and their family members are actually above the law. Their crimes are hushed up and go unpunished. The power structures of the country and law enforcement agencies are thoroughly corrupt and not controlled by society.

Moreover, this system of power does not seek to completely control society. An authoritarian regime focuses on absolute political and significant economic control, and grants substantial freedoms in the areas of culture, religion and education.

The main method of governing the country, which is used under an authoritarian regime, is command and control.

It should be noted that in order to judge a management system as authoritarian, it is not necessary to have all of the above features. A few of them are enough for this. At the same time, the existence of one of these features does not automatically make the state authoritarian. In fact, there are no clear criteria by which to differentiate between authoritarianism and totalitarianism with democracy. But the presence in the state of most of the above-described factors already serves as a confirmation that the system of government is authoritarian.

Classification of authoritarian regimes

Authoritarian systems in different countries can take a variety of forms, often outwardly dissimilar to each other. In this regard, it is customary to divide them into several typological types. Among them are the following:

absolutist monarchy;
sultanist regime;
military-bureaucratic regime;
racial democracy;
corporate authoritarianism;
post-totalitarian regimes;
postcolonial regimes;
socialist authoritarianism.

In the future, we will dwell in more detail on each of the types presented above.

Absolutist monarchy

This type of authoritarianism is inherent in modern absolute and dualistic monarchies. In such states, power is inherited. The monarch has either absolute powers to govern the country, or weakly limited.

The main examples of an authoritarian regime of this type are Nepal (until 2007), Ethiopia (until 1974), as well as the modern states of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Morocco. Moreover, the latter country is not an absolute monarchy, but a typical constitutional (dualistic) one. But, despite this, the sultan's power in Morocco is so strong that this country can be classified as an authoritarian state.

Sultanist regime

This type of authoritarian regime is so named because the power of the ruler in the countries where it is applied is comparable to the power of the medieval sultans. Officially, the position of the head of such states may have different names, but in most of the known cases they held the presidency. In addition, under the sultanist regime, there is the possibility of inheriting power, although this is not legally enshrined. The most famous leaders of countries dominated by this type of authoritarian regime were Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Rafael Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, François Duvalier in Haiti. The latter, by the way, managed to transfer power to his son Jean-Claude.

Sultanist regimes are characterized by the maximum concentration of power in one hand in comparison with other autocratic systems. Their distinguishing feature is the absence of ideology, the prohibition of a multi-party system, as well as absolute autocracy.

Military-bureaucratic regime

A distinctive feature of this type of authoritarian regime is the seizure of power in the country by a group of military men through a coup. At first, all power is concentrated in the hands of the military, but in the future, representatives of the bureaucracy are increasingly involved in management. In the future, this type of government can gradually take the path of democratization.

The main factors that lead to the establishment of military regimes are dissatisfaction with the existing government and the fear of revolution from below. It is the last factor that further influences the restriction of democratic freedoms and the right to choose. The exclusion of the intelligentsia from power, which is opposed to such a regime, is its main task.

The most typical representatives of this type of authoritarianism are the regime of Nasser in Egypt, Pinochet in Chile, Perón in Argentina, and the juntas of 1930 and 1969 in Brazil.

Racial democracy

Despite the fact that the name of this type of authoritarianism contains the word "democracy", this political regime grants freedoms and rights only to representatives of a certain nationality or race. Other nationalities are not allowed to participate in the political process, including through violence.

The most typical example of racial democracy is South Africa during the apartheid period.

Corporate authoritarianism

The corporate form of authoritarianism is considered its most typical form. It arises in societies with a relatively developed economy, in which various oligarchic groups (corporations) come to power. In such a state structure, ideology is practically absent, and the economic and other interests of the group that came to power play a decisive role. As a rule, in states with corporate authoritarianism, there is a multi-party system, but these parties cannot play a significant role in political life because of the apathy of society towards them.

This type of political regime became most widespread in Latin America, in particular in Guatemala, Nicaragua (until 1979), and Cuba during the reign of Batista. There were also examples of corporate authoritarianism in Europe. This regime manifested itself most vividly in Portugal during the reign of Salazar and in Spain during the Franco dictatorship.

Post-totalitarian regimes

This is a special type of authoritarian regimes that are formed in societies moving along the path from totalitarianism to democracy. At the same time, the phase of authoritarianism is not at all necessary on this road, but it is inevitable in those former totalitarian countries where it was not possible to quickly build a full-fledged democratic society.

Post-totalitarian regimes are characterized by the concentration of significant economic assets in the hands of representatives of the former party nomenklatura and people close to them, as well as the military elite. Thus, they turn into an oligarchy.

Postcolonial regimes

As with post-totalitarian regimes, in many post-colonial countries, authoritarianism is a phase in the movement towards democracy. True, the development of these states often stops at this stage for many decades. As a rule, this form of power is established in countries with a poorly developed economy and an imperfect political system.

Socialist authoritarianism

This type of authoritarianism is manifested in the peculiarities of the development of socialist society in certain countries of the world. It is formed on the basis of a special perception of socialism within these states, which has nothing in common with the so-called European socialism or real social democracy.

In states with this form of government, there is a one-party system and there is no legal opposition. Countries with socialist authoritarianism often have a fairly strong leadership role. In addition, socialism is quite often combined with mild nationalism.

Among modern countries, socialist authoritarianism is most pronounced in Venezuela, Mozambique, Guinea, Tanzania.

general characteristics

As you can see, an authoritarian regime is a rather ambiguous form of government with no clear boundaries to define. Its place on the political map lies between the democratic and totalitarian systems. general characteristics an authoritarian regime can be voiced as a compromise between the two regimes.

Under an authoritarian regime, some freedoms are allowed in relation to members of society, but as long as they do not threaten the ruling elite. As soon as a threat begins to emanate from a particular force, political repression is applied against it. But, unlike a totalitarian society, these repressions are not massive, but are applied selectively and narrowly.

INTRODUCTION 2

CONCLUSION. 3

2 types of authoritarian regimes

The elite is closely connected with the church and the military establishment (for example, the regime in Guatemala).

They are of three types:

theocratic regimes in which political power is concentrated in the hands of clergy.

4. An authoritarian regime.

An example of this type is the regime of Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

Military regimes

Authoritarianism

The opposite of democracy is authoritarianism.

Authoritarianism- one of the types of political regime in which political power is exercised by a specific person (class, party, elite group) with minimal participation of the people and which is characterized by bureaucratic-command methods of managing society.

Authoritarianism is a political system in which political power is concentrated in the hands of one person (group) or in one political institution. This system allows controlled pluralism in political opinions and actions. The public is not required to demonstrate loyalty to government officials, however excluded his participation in making the most important decisions on issues of social life.

In which countries is there a totalitarian regime?

Representatives of government bodies are merciless towards real political competitors.

Essential features of authoritarianism:

monopoly on state power of one group or party;
complete or partial ban on the actions of the opposition;
rigidly centralized power structure;
inheritance and co-optation as the main ways of forming governing bodies;
the use of law enforcement agencies to retain power;
exclusion of the possibility of citizens' participation in the management of society.

Authoritarianism or her elements are widespread in modern societies. The transition from it to democratic forms of government is not always successful. TO reasons for its reproduction relate:

maintaining the orientation of the population towards traditional forms of social life and authorities;
preservation of the patriarchal type of political culture;
significant influence of religious norms on the political orientation of the population;
economic backwardness;
a high degree of conflict in developing societies.

Depending on the nature of the dominant political force, the authoritarian regimes are divided into military, oligarchic, religious and bureaucratic regimes.

In modern Western political science, the concept of "new democracy" or "semi-democracy" has been introduced. This is how post-communist regimes and transitional regimes from military dictatorships qualify. It is believed that under such a regime, democratic and authoritarian tendencies coexist and form a stable basis.

INTRODUCTION

Authoritarian Regimes in World Politics (page 1 of 4)

In such conditions, ordinary citizens are forced to pay taxes, obey laws without personal participation in their discussion.

1. Essence, signs and features of an authoritarian political regime