Notes-2
Authoritarian politics
Regimes
◦ Broadest class of governments
◦ Groups together those with shared characteristics
◦ The characteristics tell us how governments in the group govern
Tools, objectives, style
At a general level
Indicators of regime type
◦ Legitimacy: Its basis
◦ Accountability: To whom and how
◦ Influentials: Who gets preferred access
◦ Relations with governed: Citizens or subjects
◦ Governing structures and instruments: how governing carried out
Just discussed democratic regimes in some detail
Used Spain
◦ Legitimacy?
◦ Accountability?
◦ Influentials?
◦ Relations with citizens?
◦ Structures and instruments?
Authoritarians
Denotative definition, current
All non-democratic governments
All governments not chosen by free and fair elections.
Very broad
◦ Governments using electoral fraud
◦ Governments ruling through fear and violence
All non-democratic or pre-democratic
◦ No/very limited role for average citizen
Most also non-constitutional
◦ Few legal limits on ruler
◦ Best previous example of constitutional authoritarianism was South Africa, pre-1994: apartheid
Types
Absolutist monarchies
Military governments
Personal dictatorships
Party/other institutional dictatorships
Why study them?
◦ PS often doesn’t
◦ Once far outnumbered democracies
◦ Still a lot
Pre-end of WWII openly anti-democratic=ok
In 1975 Freedom House, www.freedomhouse.org/ , found only 25% of countries were “Free”
◦ Countries where citizens enjoyed political rights and civil liberties à good connotative definition of democracy
In 2011, Freedom House put 45% “Free”
◦ Majority still not free
◦ Authoritarian or not very democratic
Authoritarian governments are important
Some important governments are authoritarian: PRC; probably Russia; maybe Ukraine; N. Korea; Iran;
Examples
Personalist regimes
Power rests mainly on the person of the leader
Personal dictatorships
Absolute monarchies
Absolute monarchies
Monarch above law
Does not rule unaided
Has a bureaucracy
Has military force
Judiciary under monarch’s control
Current examples
Saudi Arabia
Gulf kingdoms/sheikdoms
Brunei
Recent example: Iran before 1979
Similar: politically active monarchs
Jordan
Morocco
Monarchy vs. other forms of personal rule
Legitimacy: Family
Hereditary
Has withstood bad government
In other respects can be the same
But should be more stable than other personal dictatorships
Legitimacy
The tyrants: archetypal dictators
Lots: Gadhafi, Saddam, Assads, lots of Latin American and African dictators
May or may not include Kim (N. Korea) or Castro (Cuba)
Rule through Communist Party
Though they dominate CP
CP may ease transition to next ruler
Less likely to be multi-generational
Hard to get beyond two
Legitimacy must be based on either
Performance – deliver the goods; or
Continued coercion
Mix is most probable
W/in ruling generation quite stable
Dictator controls everything
No organized group to challenge him
Has praetorian guard loyal to him
Keeps changing favourites
Effective use of clientelism
Force and coercion
Like monarchs they count on family
Loyalty
May not be competent
Also like monarchs need other supporters
Competence
A subset: the warlord
Takes power by force and governs through violence
Often rob public
Little social/economic progress
Often emerge in power vacuum
Baddest one wins
Failed state
Institutional dicttorships
Built around party, military, religion
Can have a single leader
Or can see rulers from the institution rotate as leader
But all rulers come from the institution
Depend on institution for support
If institution keeps autonomy it controls ruler
Institutions set the rules
What govt is to do
How it is to do it
Change remove ruler and put in another
From the same institution
Institution continues to rule
Can last a long time
Not as long as monarchies or democracies
The military
Key terms
Coup: forceful seizure of power
Junta: a committee of military officers who run a military government à collegial
Key traits
Seldom govern for long
Hand back to civilians
Sometimes do stay longer
Remodel the system
Or simply do not want to leave
May distrust civilians
May be doing too well
Coup d’etat or Golpe de estado
Military is different
Can act against military governments too
◦ The institution sets the rules
Coups especially common in certain places:
◦ Latin America, SS Africa, N. Africa, Mid-east, parts of Asia
And under certain conditions
◦ Unstable, ineffective, “disloyal” govt
For a coup to succeed need:
◦ A grievance
◦ A coalition strong enough to win
◦ To neutralize opponents
◦ To act quickly
◦ To decide fate of ousted govt
Can see military rule “institutionalized”
◦ Becomes a regular, accepted part of how a country is ruled
Even legitimate
◦ Military = arbiter of disputes among civilian politicians
Party dictatorships
Mainly Communist
◦ Franco, Saddam, Assads – sort of
One institution controls political life
Party either stronger than leader or leader dependent on party
◦ Mao, Deng, Stalin, Khrushchev, Ho
Can prohibit other parties (one-party state) or permit them to exist but not govern (hegemonic party state)
Hegemonic
◦ Mexico (1929-2000, PRI), Somocista Nicaragua (1936-79), PRC
◦ Good reasons to let others exist
Appearances
Co-opt
Hegemonic party states often dictatorships
Or could be quasi- or semi-dictatorships
◦ Depends on levels of control exercised. amount of violence used, how much of police state it is
Recap
How authoritarians differ from democracies
Democracies HAVE to be
◦ Accountable
◦ Pluralistic
◦ Follow rule of law
Authoritarians do not
Readings
Siaroff
Names used:
◦ Sultanism
◦ Electoral authoritarianism
Problem in PS
Totalitarianism
◦ Not important now; could be again
Includes electoral authoritarianism
Levitsky and Way
◦ Competitive authoritarians, hybrids, new phenomenon
Not a stop on way to democracy
Can become more democratic, more authoritarian, or stay mixed
But must have basically free, competitive elections
◦ That’s what distinguishes them
Must also have legislatures where opp parties function freely
◦ Don’t have to win anything
Must have some level of judicial independence
◦ Though courts can still make partisan decisions
Must be some independent media with some clout
◦ Have to be able to criticize and to publicize
◦ Note that L&W say nothing about non-governmental actors, civil society
◦ Authoritarians say non-govt = anti-govt = not pluralistic
◦ Democrats don’t = pluralistic
How are they authoritarian?
◦ Limit opposition through bribery or legal harassment
◦ Marginalize civil society
◦ Politicize usually non-partisan parts of govt
◦ Reduce govt accountability to minimum
◦ Govt only responsive to loyalists
Hybrids
Obviously combine traits of different kinds of regimes
Can be used to describe any mixed system
◦ For example, party + personal dictatorships, like Cuba (the Castros + Cuban Communist Party)
For about last 10 years used to describe
◦ Specific democratic – authoritarian blend
◦ Free and fair elections +
◦ Authoritarian elements
Important?
◦ If elections free and fair = government can lose any election
◦ Implies accepting becoming opposition
A couple of points
Govt can lose any election
◦ Not just a remote technical possibility
◦ But govt does NOT control political system to a degree that permits winning in any but extraordinary circumstances
Implies
◦ Non-partisan electoral authority
Won’t fudge results
Won’t eliminate opponents à
has reasonable rules for qualifying to run or vote
Applies them fairly
Opposition can still be weak à dominant party system
Can’t be hegemonic party system
◦ Campaigning
Heckling ok, harassment no
Equitable (?) access to media and funding
Violence (?) India? Jamaica?
◦ Media
Free enough to report and criticize
Can be highly partisan
◦ Voters
Don’t feel threatened
Voting not a hardship
Voting “wrong” won’t bring harm
Free & fair harder than we might think
To be an electoral democracy all the prerequisites for free & fair elections must be met
Electoral democracies fall short of full or consolidated democracies
◦ Because they can have other non-democratic features
The authoritarian side
Mostly linked to personalized govt
Very strong president/PM
Such govts often have non-democratic traits
◦ Even when found in democracies
Usual features
◦ Limited accountability: elections; little else
Not courts or legislature
◦ Weak rule of law
◦ Restricted pluralism
Parties, some powerful organized interests
Civil society limited
Big question
Can they maintain free elections and their non-democratic traits?
Can an electoral democracy survive where there is:
◦ Limited accountability?
◦ Weak rule of law?
◦ Restricted pluralism?
Chavez
Venezuela, 1958-1998
Successful democracy
First in country’s history to last
Built on a pact: an inter-elite deal
◦ Pact of Punto Fijo
◦ In return of accepting democracy:
◦ Military got more money and more modern arms
◦ Business got assurance of no nationalizations
◦ Big landholder: no expropriations for land reform
◦ Labour: solid wages from oil revenues
◦ Landless: opening public lands to settlement
Worked well until early ‘80s
◦ Oil prices fell after 1980
◦ But rapid price rise in ‘70s à much spending and then borrowing
◦ Brought big foreign debts & debt crisis
◦ Brought Structural Adjustment
Like what Greece has now: AUSTERITY!!!
Structural adjustment brought
◦ More taxes
◦ Less government spending
Including subsidies for basic services like bus transportation
◦ More unemployment
Brought the Caracazo, 1989
◦ 30% rise in bus fares à riots in Caracas
Govt responds with force
◦ Especially in poor neighbourhoods
◦ Deaths estimated between 500-3000
◦ Instability and riots in other cities too
Later scandals involving presidents
◦ Jaime Lusinchi, 1984-89: corruption
◦ Carlos Andres Perez, 1974-9, 1989-93: impeached and convicted
Partydocracy
◦ Two parties, AD (centre-left) and COPEI (centre-right) dominate since 1958
◦ Know govt inside out
◦ Lots of opportunities for corruption
1993: Rafael Caldera wins; 31% of votes
◦ Non-voters=40%
System broke down in ’80s
Limped through ’90s w/scandals + extreme austerity
Lost legitimacy & support
1992: Chavez coup fails
◦ Reformist, leftist, coup
◦ Not all that rare: 1945, 1957 in Ven
◦ Best example: Peru 1968 (1968-75)
◦ Why? Neoliberalism
Economic policy prescription + ideology
◦ Dominant 1979-2002; still very big
◦ Little govt, lots of freedom for businesses
Like what collapsed in 1930’s
Favoured by business + USA + UK + CDA + EU
◦ One of several capitalist models of Political Economy
How state & economy interact: who has influence
Dominant due to support of biggest business and powerful govts (USA)
◦ Produced structural adjustment + austerity as cure for everything = panacea
Coup failed, jailed, amnestied in 1994
1998: Chávez wins presidential election
◦ Movement for the Fifth Republic
◦ Bolivarian Revolution & 21st Century Socialism
How he won in ’98
Tours Ven, then parts of LA seeking support
◦ Begins what becomes close relation with Fidel
Overlooked by mainstream media
Debate over military v. electoral politics
Electoral side, originally opposed by HC, wins when a Chavez ally running for a leftist party wins governorship of an important state
◦ Showed left could win electorally
◦ Note: LA left historically distrusted elections, seeing them controlled by elites
1998-Seen as outsider
◦ Campaigns offering aid for poor, end to old system of party domination, new const.
◦ Gains support of various leftist parties
◦ Eventually wins landslide, 56-40
Referendum on constituent assembly
HC dominates constituent assembly
Bolivarian constitutions\
◦ Extends state econ role: oil
◦ Increases presidential powers: military
Initially pretty moderate
◦ Opposition mobilizes: Ties w/Cuba
Coup of 2002
◦ April 2002: Big anti-govt protest; violence à 20 dead
◦ Coup: mil + business + media + old parties
Succeded for a day then failed
◦ Suspended constitution & rolled back changes
◦ Counter-coupà Hugo returns
12/02: Strike/lockout by PDVSA (oil)
◦ HC sacks 19,000; restructures PDVSA
2004: Faces recall– HC wins
2006: wins re-election; big margin
2007: loses referendum
2009: Wins new version of referendum
◦ Unconstitutional
2010: Wins leg majority w/fewer votes than opp
◦ Gerrymandering before hand
What Hugo does
Lots of emphasis on intl affairs
◦ May spend too much on intl image
◦ Tight w/Ahmadinejad; was w/Gadhafi;
◦ Objective apparently building anti-US alliance
Domestic
Economic
◦ State sector expands somewhat
◦ No bigger than in 1998
◦ Almost completely dependent on oil
◦ Govt spending up; poverty down
Poverty is WB $1 or $2/day
◦ Inflation rising; as is deficit
Human rights: Women and indigenous – better
◦ Apparently political discrimination
◦ Questions re-media freedom
Political
◦ PUSV: pressures allies to join
◦ Electoral manipulation – some
◦ Seems to use state against opponents
Main weakness: personal rule