AUTHORITARIANISM

Along with totalitarianism and democracy, authoritarianism is one of the main types of political regimes or systems. Though different variants exist, all authoritarian systems share certain basic features that have significant implications for science, technology, and ethics. For instance, the easy flow of information that facilitates science and is promoted by communications technology creates both opportunities for and burdens on authoritarian leaders seeking to maintain their control over the political realm.

Prominent scholars of authoritarianism include Juan J. Linz and Guillermo A. O'Donnell. Linz (2000) highlights the differences between authoritarianism and totalitarianism, while also pointing out the possibility for authoritarianism to combine with the other two types of government in a hybrid form of political regime. O'Donnell (1973) emphasizes the importance of a bureaucratic form of authoritarianism, distinct from cases of traditional military regimes or authoritarian systems managed by a dominant political party,

while highlighting differences among authoritarian systems based on the degree of modernization in particular countries.

Features of Authoritarianism

In its ideal form, authoritarianism exhibits four defining features: a depoliticization or demobilization of the general population, the lack of a central governing ideology, legitimacy based on performance, and the general absence of official limitations on government action. These features distinguish authoritarian systems from democratic and totalitarian ones (see Table 1).

Because authoritarian governments do not seek to remake society in the way totalitarian systems do, there are fewer reasons to mobilize the masses compared to the other types of political systems. When it occurs, mobilization is generally designed to enhance the legitimacy of the system (the belief by the general public in the right to rule of the governmental institutions and individual leaders). As Samuel P. Huntington (1968) has argued, instability in any political system is often the result of political participation that is not channeled into regime-supportive activities. Thus, although authoritarian political systems may hold elections, the campaigns for such elections are devoid of significant discussions of issues in a form critical of the government, and the outcome is not in doubt. If necessary, ballot boxes will be stuffed or results falsified. Likewise, political parties may exist, but they are not used to organize the masses as in a totalitarian system nor to aggregate and articulate issue positions to allow the masses to choose in free and fair elections as in democracies. Opposition political organizations are either tightly controlled or not tolerated at all.

Partly because authoritarian systems do not seek the remaking of society, ideology is less important than in either totalitarian states or democracies. This is not to imply that authoritarian systems lack goals or a vision for change; they tend to focus on a particular vision, what Linz (1975) has called the "mentality" of authoritarian systems. In cases in which an authoritarian system is established through the overthrow of a democracy, the authoritarian leaders may concentrate on the need to institute policy changes to bring economic stability or otherwise restore order to a chaotic situation. This is often welcomed by the masses, who will, in many cases, prefer order to freedom. Thus, an important part of the legitimacy for an authoritarian system is based on its performance. As long as it achieves its goals, the general population may be quite willing to tolerate the absence of freedoms and the lack of a check on government power.

The final central feature of authoritarian political systems—the lack of official limitations on government action—is one that these systems share with totalitarian regimes. As Mark Hagopian (1984) has argued, the lack of legal restraints helps define both totalitarian and authoritarian systems as dictatorships and allows one easily to distinguish them from constitutional democracies. There are differences, however, between authoritarian and totalitarian systems in this regard. One could argue that authoritarian systems have even fewer institutional constraints than do their totalitarian counterparts (because of the comparatively limited role of a ruling political party in most authoritarian regimes). On the other hand, totalitarian regimes lack the informal—or, to use Hagopian's (1984, p. 118) term, "extralegal"—limits on power found in most authoritarian systems. The lack of official constraints does not imply the absence of ruling institutions or an official constitution, nor does it mean that society is completely controlled or powerless. Instead, the official rules of the game are subordinate to the will of the authoritarian ruler or rulers. Checks and balances (including judicial review) and the rule of law, both of which are familiar to citizens of many democratic countries, are unusual in authoritarian states. To the extent that constraints exist, they tend to be informal or based on connections between the government and powerful figures in society such as the wealthy. Such figures, or social institutions such as the church, can have a degree of autonomy from the state—and in some cases even a degree of influence over it.

Types of Authoritarianism

There are as many variations of authoritarianism as there are of democracy. The three main forms, however, are: military, bureaucratic, and party. A military authoritarian system (such as Pinochet's Chile) is one in which the military actually controls the policymaking institutions. Military authoritarian systems can arise for several reasons: an external threat to the security of the country, instability within the country, or threats to the autonomy of the military and/or the degree of military spending by the government. A bureaucratic authoritarian system (for example, Brazil following the military coup in 1964, Argentina in 1966–1974) usually involves an uneasy relationship between the military and the bureaucracy. Experts in their fields hold important political positions, and the bureaucracy becomes a central actor in the creation and implementation of policy. This policy is designed to facilitate internal stability, foster economic development, and maintain a modern society (O'Donnell 1973). The goal of modernization helps justify the power of "technocrats" in this form of authoritarianism.

A party authoritarian system (such as Mexico during much of the twentieth century) uses an existing or newly created political party to organize political activity and enhance the legitimacy of the system. The party is less important than in totalitarian systems, though it can play a role in facilitating elite–mass linkages. During the long period of dominance of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) in Mexico in the twentieth century, connections between government officials and interests within society were maintained through the party rather than the state. Even the party authoritarian type can be dissected. Huntington (1970), for example, lists three forms of party authoritarianism. If control through a political party is combined with a broader effort to remake society, the result is a hybrid form of government bridging authoritarianism and totalitarianism.

A hybrid between authoritarianism and democracy is also possible. Some call this semi-democracy, while others have termed it semi-authoritarianism (Ottaway 2003). In these systems, certain aspects of democracy exist, though others—most commonly freedoms such as of speech and the press—are curtailed by government control and/or intimidation. Thus, elections may exist without significant fraud, but the range of opinions expressed during the campaign is limited; media coverage of the government leadership is uniformly favorable. Since the election (and reelection) of Vladimir Putin, Russia has moved more and more in this direction. In some countries, this semi-authoritarianism can act as a bridge to democracy. In others, as is arguably the case in Putin's Russia, it may signal a move away from liberal democracy and toward a more classic authoritarian system. But semi-authoritarianism can also be quite persistent and need not be a transition to something else.

Science, Technology, and Ethics

The impact of authoritarianism on science, technology, and ethics is significant. For authoritarian leaders, ethical considerations are usually secondary to the goals of maintaining power, fostering stability, and facilitating economic performance. The concept of the rule of law has no place in the ideal authoritarian system. Human rights violations are common, as those whom the government perceives to be potential political threats are harassed, arrested, or killed. As in totalitarian systems, scientists in authoritarian states face ethical dilemmas working with such governments. On the one hand, cooperation with the state may provide an essential opportunity to conduct research. On the other, such cooperation both sanctions the actions of the government and opens the door to government use of the research in ways scientists may find morally objectionable.

Likewise, science and technology in general are double-edged swords for authoritarian officials. Authoritarian leaders who emphasize economic development as a central goal must foster technological advancements. In addition, science and technology may be put to use in assisting the maintenance of authoritarian power. Though less so than in totalitarian systems, authoritarian governments monitor the actions of individuals who might threaten their political power. In China, leaders have sought to harness the power of new technology to spread regime-supportive propaganda.

But technology can also threaten authoritarian rule. Those leaders who emphasize as their defining goal the protection of national culture rather than economic development often see technology as a transmission belt for "foreign" (especially Western) values. Those leaders who seek to use technology to monitor the actions of individuals also find that the technology allows those individuals to hide from this monitoring. The information-enhancing capacity of the Internet can be harnessed by opponents as well as government officials. The Chinese government works diligently to shut down Internet sites of regime opponents. But as quickly as these sites are removed, others spring up. Simply put, the more advanced and complex the society, the more difficult it is to keep it under surveillance. Thus, some authoritarian leaders may actively discourage certain types of technological advancements in their country.

LOWELL W. BARRINGTON

SEE ALSO Expertise;Fascism;Technocracy;Totalitarianism.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hagopian, Mark N. (1984). Regimes, Movements, And Ideologies: A Comparative Introduction To Political Science, 2nd edition. New York: Longman.

Huntington, Samuel P. (1968). Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Huntington, Samuel P. (1970). "Social and Institutional Dynamics of One-Party Systems." In Authoritarian Politics in Modern Society: The Dynamics of Established One-Party Systems, ed. Samuel P. Huntington and Clement H. Moore. New York: Basic.

Linz, Juan J. (1975). "Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes." In Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 3: Macro-political Theory, ed. Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Linz, Juan J. (2000). Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

O'Donnell, Guillermo A. (1973). Modernization and Bureaucratic-Authoritarianism: Studies in South American Politics. Berkeley: University of California, Institute of International Studies.

Ottaway, Marina. (2003). Democracy Challenged: The Rise of Semi-authoritarianism. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.