Blog Discussion Group Three
Blog post due at 11:55pm on Feb. 5 and comment due at 11:55pm on Feb. 8.
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?
Question 1: What are some of the essential differences between democracies and authoritarian regimes?
ReplyDeleteDue to the many rules and regulations outlined in our constitution since the US was founded, we are governed by democracy. Compared to other political ruling types, many would agree that democracy is the best because it gives voice to the People. It's power to the People BY the People. We have rights, and laws to protect our rights. We have checks and balances to keep everyone and everything checked and balanced. Ultimately, we have freedom to live, and to live as we please, so long as our way of living does not violate the laws issued by our government. We also have the freedom and rights to things such as voting, marching and protesting, public speaking, practicing religious beliefs, and so on.
On the other end of the spectrum is rule by authoritarian regimes. There are ultimately six different types of regimes: personal despotism, monarchy, ruling parties, ruling presidents, military rule, and theocracy (Hague, 61). While all of these are either ruled by parties or sovereign, or just by an individual, each of them have their own styles of rule and control. For one, it's important to note that in a theocracy, one is expected to share the same beliefs as others under that same system of government. Unlike democracy, there is NO freedom of religion because, under a theocracy, you're bound to the religion guiding the government and/or religious leaders are directly in positions to control the government (Hague, 61). Authoritarian regimes that fall under the category of personal despotism utilize fear and rewards to govern their citizens. This fear could be caused by things such as having (natural) rights taken away, or by the threat of violence or death (although these usually accompany tyrannical authoritarian regimes).
While I gave very few examples of differences between democracies and authoritarian regimes, they are arguably the most essential and important.
Citation: Hague, Rod and Martin Harrop. "Political Science: A Comparative Introduction." 7th ed., Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.
1. What are some of the essential differences between democracies and authoritarian regimes?
ReplyDeleteThe word "democracy" comes from the Greek words "demos" which refers to the people and "kratos" which means "power." Together the words imply that the people hold the power with regards to governance, or more accurately, with regard to who governs. By definition, they require that the people participate. Modern democracies must give power to the people and put into place institutions intended to protect the people's rights and ability to collectively make changes in their government as they see fit. For example, the American Bill of Rights presents a list or civil rights that are guaranteed to all citizens as well as a list of governmental restrictions which protect their privacy rights. Democracies utilize popular sovereignty through elections. The people elect representatives and executives through free and fair elections. Democratic governments are limited by the law, meaning they cannot act outside of the letter of the law, nor can they create laws for their convenience.
In contrast, authoritarian governments, particularly despotic authoritarian governments, are characterized by powerful rulers who gained their positions most often by intimidation or trickery and maintain their positions despite the will of the people. They hold the power, and as such the people are discouraged from participating in government. Authoritarian governments do not preserve the civil rights of their people and they do not restrict their ability to control their citizens. Those that have elections often do so only for appearances, as they have minimal impact on the leadership. Their laws are written with the people in mind, and do not apply to institutions or to the leader or his subordinates, unless the leader says so.
Being such that they are, it these systems are virtually incompatible, meaning there will likely never be a hybrid between the two that upholds the fundamental characteristics or both simultaneously.
Sources:
http://www.ushistory.org/gov/13a.asp
https://martiallawmuseum.ph/magaral/democracy-vs-authoritarianism/
http://www.civiced.org/pdfs/books/ElementsOfDemocracy/Elements_Subsection3.pdf
Hague, R., & Harrop, M. Comparative government and politics. 7th ed., Palgrave MacMillan, 2013, ch4
While I had similar thoughts to what you mentioned in your discussion, Will, I've done further reading since then and my views on authoritarian governments have shifted a little. We can say with certainty that there ARE "bad" types of authoritarian governments that seek to take away our rights as human beings, but not all are "out to get us". Constitutional Monarchy, for example, can be a great form of government rule for many reasons. For one, people are united under a monarch, and constitutional monarchy promises stability. In addition, monarchies are cheaper than republics and countries ruled by monarchies are more often trusting and less corrupt. Constitutional Monarchies are even GOOD for the economy! There are more reasons beyond these, but I just wanted to make note of the important ones. Yes, other authoritarian governments can restrict rights and/or induce fear in their citizens, but not constitutional monarchies. And while, again yes, they're very different from democracies (especially in the sense of (lacking) elections), they're not necessarily bad.
DeleteCitation: Howard, Victoria. "8 reasons constitutional monarchy is the best form of government." The Crown Chronicles, 15 April 2017. Web. https://www.thecrownchronicles.co.uk/explanation/why-constitutional-monarchy-is-the-best-form-of-government/.
question 2- What are authoritarian leaders mainly concerned in their political rule?
ReplyDeleteAuthoritarian leaders main concern when it comes to their political rule is simple. Their mainn concern is their own agenda. Authoritarian rulers typically pay little attentionn to the public or even to their own advisors, rather they rule their nation the way they deem fit. Due to their overwhelminng concern for themselves, authoritarian rulers often reign over countries that grow to have low morale over time. The lack of being able to voice their opinions can create an environment where it is forbidden to speak out against the ruler's decision. An authoritarian leader decides what is going to happen, when it is going to happen, without input from anyone else. However, authoritarian leadership is not entirely bad. If the leader understands what is best for his/her country, then this way of political ruling can ensure decisionns are made swiftly and effectively.
this post is from Robert Ellis, not the other one I commented on.
DeleteQuestion 2. What are authoritarian leaders mainly concerned in their political rule?
ReplyDeleteAuthoritarian leaders are mainly concerned about power generally speaking. Increasing the military might of the country they are ruling increases the countries power, therefore increasing the authoritarians power. This is in the case of a central authoritarian dictator. Authoritarianism isn't accountable to its people, the people are accountable to it more so than would be the case in a democracy. Authoritarian governments tend to sprint towards tyranny, as a strict democracy can sprint towards anarchy. Which is why the founding fathers of the United States were weary of both authoritarianism and total democracy.
This is Robert Ellis, not sure why it says unkown
ReplyDelete1. What are some of the essential differences between democracies and authoritarian regimes?
ReplyDeleteI believe the most fundamental difference between a democratic regime and an authoritarian regime is that in an authoritative regime state, the government works for the ruler, while in a democracy the government works for the people. In the way that the elected officials are chose, Authoritarian regimes can vary, as some can be communist or not, but essentially elections run differently in the way that the opposing parties do not stand a fair chance at defeating the party in control. Some authoritarian countries will hold an election, others may present the final candidate to the public for endorsement. Even if an election is held, the ruling party dictates how the society receives information, particularly about the opposition, if they receive any information at all. Another note, just in the terminology used to describe multiple types of authoritarian governments, the word "rule" is used, as in one person rules, or a small group of people rule, or the ruler dominates the media, and in democratic systems the people impacted have a voice, and are involved in making the choice in who the ruler is. There is much more freedom for democracies in relation to creating interest groups, movements, or harnessing support because people are not penalized for speaking, as they can be in authoritarian regimes, especially if it is in opposition to the ruler. An argument that Hague and Harrop make is that authoritarian regimes are "in a weaker political position than their equivalents in liberal democracies..." (59) and im sure in translation, the regime type somehow translates to power, and that the control over the environments reinforces power structures that allow hierarchical fashions to be maintained. "...one skill in sustaining a non-democratic regime is for the ruling leader (or group) to maintain a political coalition strong enough to offer support but not powerful enough to pose a threat.." (Hague and Harrop p. 59) From these two quotes, I've developed a better understanding of authoritarian regimes obtaining and maintaining of power. The main differences between democratic and authoritarian are in the ways in which power is obtained and maintained.
I agree with you that authoritarian government works for the one(s) in power and democracy government works for the people. That it probably the most important fact about the two types of governments. Democracies usually carry a limited amount of power because of this principle and follow a constitution as what to what the government has the power to do. Authoritarian government power is only limited to what the ruler(s) are capable of doing because they have absolute control over governance of the state. The other big difference that you mentioned that I agree with is that certain defined freedoms or liberties are granted in a democracy, but there is no guarantee of any freedoms in a authoritarian regime. The two quotes you picked are also very enlightening about the way in which power is obtained and implemented.
Delete"Hague and Harrop"
http://www.ushistory.org/gov/13a.asp
Authoritarian leaders have a clear chain of command over the power. Their political ruling is viewed as a success or a failure. In order for it to succeed a number of things must be done right. Authoritarian leaders cannot be inconsistent, they have to follow through with the rules they have established. Work is highly structured and rigid, forcing out a lot of creativity and supplying a specific lifestyle for the citizens. These attributes not being recognized can lead to the collapse or replacement of the regime. Most of the time, Authoritarian regimes are replaced with new ones. For example, Cesar replacing the Roman Republic or Napoleon replacing the Assembly. The power a leader holds is extremely important and it directly measures if they are a success or not. China, for example, is the success the western world thought it wouldn’t be. Why? China is repressive but responsive. The “great fire wall” is something that was of disbelief but gives a structured vision of citizenship. In the end, the most important concern to an authoritarian leader is power.
ReplyDeleteGardels, Nathan. “This Paradox Explains Why China Has Not Failed so Far.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 30 Nov. 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/11/30/china-authoritarian-2/?utm_term=.0cd67a7b75ec.
Cherry, Kendra, and Steven Gans. “What Are the Pros and Cons of Autocratic Leadership?” Verywell Mind, Dotdash, www.verywellmind.com/what-is-autocratic-leadership-2795314.
I agree with your argument regarding the importance of the structure and consistence of a regime to an authoritarian leader. In addition and in a similar vein, I think another main concern for authoritarian leaders is image. For example, in Nazi Germany, Triumph of the Will is an excellent example of the image that Leni Riefenstahl and Adolf Hitler wanted both the German people and the world to have of Germany. It is not broken, it is not weak, it is strong and ideal. Hitler was obsessed with making himself look strong and impressive to the rest of the world. Similarly, Kim Jong Un is mainly focused on demonstrating the strength of the North Korean state and the weakness of other states, particularly those of South Korea and the United States. While this idea of image is closely related to the ideas you mentioned, I feel it's different enough that it deserves special mention.
DeleteSource:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ1Qm1Z_D7w
There are many differences between Democracies and Authoritarian regimes. First of all there are certain criteria that goes into a country considering itself a democracy. If the citizens are not involved in the decision making process the country is not truly a democracy, on top of that the citizens need to have freedom of speech, religion and the press. They also need to have free and fair elections they need to be competitive and the government can not have any control over the results. In authoritarian regimes people do not have all of the same rights as those who live in a democracy. One of the most essential differences between the two systems is the way that elections are conducted. In a democracy the leaders are elected through a fair and competitive election. In a democracy only one party can hold office and the office cannot be divided. In some countries, like the US the election process becomes difficult because of what is called indirect elections. In an indirect election the office holders are elected by a body which has been chosen by a wider constituency, an example of this would be the electoral college. Also in a democratic election the person who holds power has their limits so that they don’t exploit their power. However in an authoritarian regime elections are conducted much differently. Usually those in power simply put up a facade of an election but the outcome is predetermined. Usually in communist countries the ruling party cannot be defeated and the elections are manipulated. In non communist authoritarian regimes competition is restrained and candidates are operating in a threatening environment. The lead figure has all of the power and independent candidates are banned from standing or they are followed by the secret police. On top of that the lead figure dominates the media coverage. The election process is very different and it makes the two systems very different.
ReplyDelete“Political Science: a Comparative Introduction.” Political Science: a Comparative Introduction, by Rod Hague et al., St. Martin's Press, 1993, pp. 190–209.
“Comparing Governments.” Ushistory.org, Independence Hall Association, www.ushistory.org/gov/13a.asp.
1. What are some of the essential differences between democracies and authoritarian regimes
DeleteI agree with all of the differences you supply. It is important for democracies to have fair elections and a stark difference is that authoritarians often don't. I feel it is as well important to give historical context. For example, it's easy to say there weren't fair elections in Cesar's time. This is compared to the President of China who has elected himself "President for life" allows us to see failures and success in authoritarian regimes. With democracies, the United States has fair elections but isn't actually considered a democracy, but a federal republic. Due to the structure, we are not a "by the book" democracy.
Delete4. How does political culture differ from political ideology?
ReplyDeletePolitical culture and political ideology are quite different, even though at first glance it may not seem that way. Political ideology is the ideas and beliefs that a group of people believe should be implemented in the form of policy and legislation. "The role of the state" that a person or people believe is political ideology. Examples of political ideology are communism, socialism, or Marxism. These are all political philosophies designed to be implemented by government for regulation and enforcement. Political ideologies have specific applications and goals that they wish to obtain, such as communism is designed to give absolute equality to a state and unify these people as a whole contributor to the state.
Political culture, on the other hand, is the collection of values that are common to a state and it's people. Political culture is a consensus on what a state is founded on philosophically in a general sense. Political culture is based on long standing tradition and does not change easily. For example, the United States is long founded on the ideas of capitalism, liberty, and individualism. These are values held by almost all Americans, even if the actual policies being debated and implemented are debatable, these values have been part of the United States since the beginning.
So in summary, political ideology is the belief as to what government's role and obligation should be based on policy, and political culture is the long-standing values of a state.
Patrick O'Neil, Essentials of Comparative Politics, ch. 3 pg. 63,71
This is a very detailed, accurate, and clear explanation of how political culture and political ideology are different. I agree that political ideology is more about determining the role of government and political culture being based on values that have stood the test of time. I think it may also be good to mention that different political ideologies can have particular variations within themselves. However, your explanations and examples are sufficient to getting your main point across. Well stated!
DeleteYour arguments are very clear . And I see how culture and ideology are two different things but I feel as if they correlate with one ther . When talking about how to determine the characteristics and policies of a government . They feed off one another .
DeletePolitical culture is the commonly-held beliefs and values between the citizens of a state in regards to which values should be upheld for that state. Most people within a state value the same aspects of their political culture, whereas, individuals may favor differing political ideologies. Political culture can also be utilized as a way to set parameters so that no political ideology can reach lengths that may not be in line with the political culture. For example, if an American were to argue against the possibility of having jobs pre-determined for citizens through a communist political ideology, they could potentially argue that it isn’t in line with American political culture or “American values” such as liberty.
ReplyDeleteA state’s political culture is often formed through the personal interactions among individuals and is often passed down from generation to generation. While political culture is typically unanimous across a state, political ideology can often vary from person to person. Two people can have the exact same sense of political cultures values and yet have differing political ideologies. Where you live and what types of social groups you interact with can also influence your own political ideologies. Possibly the best way to understand the difference between political culture and political ideology is that if you have two people with opposing ideologies, having the same political culture is their middle ground. They both ultimately want the same things for their state, however, they just have different individual beliefs on how best to achieve those political cultural values for their state.
“Chapter 6: Political Culture.” Political Science: A Comparative Introduction, by Rod Hague and Martin Harrop, 7th ed., Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.
4. How does political culture differ from political ideology?
ReplyDeletePolitical Culture are widely shared beliefs, values and norms concerning the values and norms concerning the relationship of citizens to government and to one another and to one another. Ideology is A comprehensive, integrated set of views about government and politics. Ideologies are normally in the sets of basic beliefs about the political, economic, social and cultural affairs held by the majority of people within as society. examples are autocracy and capitalism and even democracy .