Against the Führerprinzip: For Collective Leadership

Daedalus ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 145 (3) ◽  
pp. 109-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Archie Brown
Keyword(s):  
Prime Minister ◽  
Authoritarian Regimes ◽  
Nazi Germany ◽  
Great Concentration ◽  
Collective Leadership ◽  
Authoritarian Rule ◽  
Successful Transition ◽  
Lesser Evil

The Führerprinzip has not been confined to Nazi Germany. The cult of the strong leader thrives in many authoritarian regimes and has its echoes even in contemporary democracies. The belief that the more power a president or prime minister wields the more we should be impressed by that politician is a dangerous fallacy. In authoritarian regimes, a more collective leadership is a lesser evil than personal dictatorship. In countries moving from authoritarian rule to democracy, collegial, inclusive, and collective leadership is more conducive to successful transition than great concentration of power in the hands of one individual at the top of the hierarchy. Democracies also benefit from a government led by a team in which there is no obsequiousness or hesitation in contradicting the top leader. Wise decisions are less likely to be forthcoming when one person can predetermine the outcome of a meeting or foreclose the discussion by pulling rank.

scholarly journals The State of Human Rights and Political Freedoms in Belarus: Was the Crisis Inevitable?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina Kolarzik ◽  
◽  
Aram Terzyan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Authoritarian Regimes ◽  
The State ◽  
Political Control ◽  
Political Crisis ◽  
The Political ◽  
Authoritarian Rule ◽  
Political Freedoms

The rule of Alexander Lukashenko in Belarus has created one of the most resilient authoritarian regimes in post-communist Europe. Meanwhile, the turmoil triggered by the 2020 presidential election has put in the spotlight the mounting challenges facing Lukashenko’s authoritarian rule. This paper investigates the state of human rights and political freedoms in Belarus, focusing on the main rationale behind the turmoil surrounding the 2020 presidential election. It concludes that the political crisis following the elections is the unsurprising consequence of Lukashenko’s diminishing ability to maintain power or concentrate political control by preserving elite unity, controlling elections, and/or using force against opponents.

News reception and authoritarian control in a hybrid media system: Russian TV viewers and the Russia-Ukraine conflict

Politics ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 026339572110414
Author(s):  
Maxim Alyukov
Keyword(s):  
Digital Media ◽  
Television News ◽  
Authoritarian Regimes ◽  
Authoritarian Rule ◽  
Additional Information ◽  
Cross Media ◽  
Media System ◽  
Media Environments ◽  
Media Systems ◽  
Media Repertoires

Authoritarian regimes attempt to control the circulation of political information. Scholars have identified many mechanisms through which actors can use broadcast and digital media to challenge or sustain authoritarian rule. However, while contemporary media environments are characterised by the integration of older and newer forms of communication, little is known about how authoritarian regimes use different media simultaneously to shape citizens’ perceptions. In order to address this issue, this study relies on focus groups and investigates Russian TV viewers’ cross-media repertoires and their reception of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. It argues that some citizens evaluate state-aligned television narratives as more credible when they are reinforced by similar narratives in digital media. Citizens’ reactions to this synchronisation are predicated on their type of media use. For not very active news consumers, the reliance on digital media can verify the regime’s narratives in television news. Others can escape the synchronisation effect by actively searching online for additional information or not using digital media for news. These findings show how authoritarian regimes can utilise the advantages of hybrid media systems to shape citizens’ perceptions and specify the conditions under which citizens can escape the effects of the regime’s simultaneous use of different media.

Democratic Disequilibrium in Venezuela

1995 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer L. McCoy ◽  
William C. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Political Culture ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Authoritarian Regimes ◽  
Democratic Regime ◽  
Authoritarian Rule ◽  
Scholarly Research ◽  
Contemporary Politics ◽  
Latin American Countries ◽  
Rules Of The Game

Venezuela's contemporary politics poses a problematic different from those predominating in the literature on democratization. Scholarly research in the last decade focused first on the crisis of authoritarian rule and the ensuing transition to civilian governments, with the reestablishment of electoral procedures, and, more recently, on the problems of the consolidation of a democratic regime, including alternation in power, universal acceptance of the rules of the game, and generation of a democratic political culture.The challenges confronting Venezuela are not those of transition or consolidation but, rather, the decomposition — or deconsolidation — of an established democratic regime. In other Latin American countries in recent decades, longstanding models of statist development developed crises that led, in turn, to complex transformations in the economy and in society. One consequence of these changes was that authoritarian regimes began a transition to more democratic forms of governance.

scholarly journals Introduction: State capacity and elections in the study of authoritarian regimes

2017 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aurel Croissant ◽  
Olli Hellmann
Keyword(s):  
State Capacity ◽  
Authoritarian Regimes ◽  
The Other ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Authoritarian Rule ◽  
Analytical Foundation ◽  
Electoral Authoritarianism ◽  
The One ◽  
Regime Resilience ◽  
Key Terms

Studies of multiparty elections in authoritarian regimes have proliferated in recent years. Nevertheless, the available evidence remains inconclusive in terms of when, where, or why elections work to sustain or undermine authoritarian rule. The contributions to the special issue ‘State Capacity, Elections and the Resilience of Authoritarian Rule’ argue that analyzing the extent to which the effect of elections on authoritarian regime resilience is mediated through the factor of state capacity helps to solve this puzzle. This introduction lays out the analytical foundation for this discussion by reviewing key terms and concepts, and by highlighting possible theoretical connections between the state capacity literature on the one hand and the electoral authoritarianism literature on the other. Furthermore, it considers the contributions in this special issue, and points out areas of agreement and disagreement between the authors, while simultaneously placing the different arguments within the broader field of enquiry.

Repeated Multiparty Elections in Cambodia: Intensifying Authoritarianism Yet Benefiting the Masses

2020 ◽  
Vol 93 (3) ◽  
pp. 567-592
Author(s):  
Sivhuoch Ou
Keyword(s):  
Economic Policy ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Party System ◽  
Prime Minister ◽  
Authoritarian Regimes ◽  
People's Party ◽  
Dominant Party ◽  
Authoritarian Government ◽  
The Masses ◽  
Ruling Party

The United Nations (UN) introduced multiparty elections to Cambodia in 1993 in the hope of bringing about democracy in that country. Ironically, the two-and-a-half decades of uninterrupted elections have led to an ever-more authoritarian government under Prime Minister Hun Sen and the Cambodian People's Party (CPP). Authoritarianism under the single-dominant party system began in 1997, but has intensified since 2017 with the ban on the leading opposition party. While concurring that repetitive elections have consolidated authoritarianism, this paper argues that elections are not merely tools that authoritarian leaders deploy to hold on to power. Elections are arguably mechanisms that have compelled the CPP to offer several extraordinary economic concessions since 2013; this is the first argument of the paper. The developments have created a win-win scenario for the rulers and the ruled—the authoritarian leaders prolong their rule, and the masses have more disposable income, among various benefits. The second argument is that such policy concessions are made only when the ruling party senses critical challenges from the opposition and voters. This paper contributes to the literature arguing that multiparty elections in electoral authoritarian regimes extract economic policy concessions.

Political Opposition in Civil Society: An Analysis of the Interactions of Secular and Religious Associations in Algeria and Jordan

2008 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 561-578 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Cavatorta ◽  
Azzam Elananza
Keyword(s):  
Civil Society ◽  
Political Parties ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Authoritarian Regimes ◽  
Civil Society Organizations ◽  
Coalition Building ◽  
Political Opposition ◽  
Authoritarian Rule ◽  
Religious Associations

AbstractThe lack of effective political parties is one of the dominant characteristics of modern Arab polities. The role of opposition to the authoritarian regimes is therefore left to a number of civil society organizations. This study examines the interactions among such groups in the context of the traditional transition paradigm and it analyses specifically how religious and secular organizations operate and interact. The empirical evidence shows that such groups, far from attempting any serious coalition-building to make common demands for democracy on the regime, have a competitive relationship because of their ideological differences and conflicting policy preferences. This strengthens authoritarian rule even in the absence of popular legitimacy. The article focuses its attention on Algeria and Jordan.

scholarly journals Internet Service Provision under Authoritarian Rule: A Field Experiment in Belarus

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Crabtree ◽  
Nils B. Weidmann
Keyword(s):  
Field Experiment ◽  
Internet Access ◽  
Authoritarian Regimes ◽  
Authoritarian Rule ◽  
Internet Service ◽  
Political Exclusion ◽  
Related Service ◽  
The Government ◽  
Exclusion Mechanism ◽  
Cross National

Do authoritarian regimes strategically limit the opposition’s Internet access? By constricting Internet access to potential challengers, governments can reduce the need to censor (since anti-regime content would be less likely to be produced and read) and also the need for large infrastructure shutdowns (which may harm the government). Cross-national work shows that political exclusion is associated with significantly lower rates of connectivity for the affected groups, but cannot tell us whether this pattern is because governments strategically limiting Internet access of the political opposition. We test this mechanism with a field experiment in Belarus. We email support centers of the national telecommunications provider and vary partisan cues in our emails. In linewith the strategic exclusion mechanism, we find a tendency that opposition support leads to lower response rates for Internet-related service requests. Due to the low responserate, however, our findings largely fail to reach conventional levels of significance.

scholarly journals POLITICAL CRISIS AND SOCIAL PROTEST IN THAILAND

2015 ◽  
pp. 222-228
Author(s):  
E. V. Koldunova
Keyword(s):  
Prime Minister ◽  
Active Phase ◽  
Social Protest ◽  
Political Crisis ◽  
Authoritarian Rule ◽  
Student Protests ◽  
Democratic Tradition ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Protests ◽  
The Military

The article focuses on socio-political activism, main features of socio-political contradictions and the couses of the recent social protests in Thailand. Thailand has the longest democratic tradition among ther countries of South-east Asia. Yetbackin 1932 the country has changed the absoulute monarchy to a constitutional one. However in the XXth century Thailand had lived through more than five decades of authoritarianism. The number of military coupd'etats which took place in Thailand now equals to almost twenty. At the same time, despite such a long authoritarian rule the country witnessed the formation of various elements of civil society. In the second part of the XX century the student protests of 1973–1976 became the most vivid example of civic activism. The social protest in Thailand reached its most active phase in the first decade of this century when the country splitted into two camps – one of thes-o-called «Red Shirts» and Another One of the «Yellow Shirts». The «Red Shirts» supported billionere Thaksin Shinawatra, a Prime Minister of Thaialnd in 2001–2006. The «Yellow Shirts» opposed him. Thet women tioned camps created new social movements – «People's Alliance for Democracy» («Yellow Shirts») and «United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship» («Red Shirts»). Since 2006 Thailand has seen several stages of the development of the social protest. The most recent one starte din November 2013 and end edin May 2014 when after more than half a year of mass meetings in the country's capital Bangkok the military took power again.

scholarly journals Violence, Governance, and Uncertainty

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Rebecca Tapscott
Keyword(s):  
Authoritarian Regimes ◽  
Democratic Institutions ◽  
Authoritarian Rule ◽  
Ongoing Debate ◽  
Civic Organization ◽  
Arbitrary Power ◽  
Civic Spaces ◽  
New Form ◽  
Everyday Experiences

The majority of today’s authoritarian regimes are characterized by a paradox in which democratic institutions exist alongside the ruler’s exercise of arbitrary power. The continued existence of civic spaces and democratic institutions can create opportunities for citizens to organize and make claims on the regime. How do rulers maintain control under such circumstances? To contribute to this ongoing debate, this book identifies ‘institutionalized arbitrariness’ as a new form of authoritarianism. Regimes characterized by institutionalized arbitrariness do not try to eliminate civic organization or democratic space, but instead use unpredictable and violent intervention to make those spaces fragile. They are more concerned with weakening competition than with maximizing control. To elaborate these dynamics, this chapter links everyday experiences of local insecurity in Uganda to contemporary debates about authoritarian rule. After positioning Uganda under President Museveni as a key case of modern authoritarianism, the chapter outlines the study and previews the book’s main findings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document