This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Looking at reliable sources, would you describe Marxism-Leninism as an Authoritarian ideology?
Thanks Bacondrum ( talk) 04:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I object to this RfC because we were discussing whether communism (not Communist states or Marxism–Leninism) should stay or be removed as Categories, or at least be reworded to state whether Marxism–Leninism is a core concept of authoritarianism
or whether reliable sources and academic books about authoritarianism routinely mention Marxism–Leninism
, but if we are going through, we have to actually follow it. The opening post correctly states Looking at reliable sources, would you describe
Marxism-Leninism as an Authoritarian ideology?
But neither of those voting for B provided any reliable source to back up their arguments.
Davide King (
talk)
Anti-Communism does not mean opposition to Communism, but opposition to an extreme degree. That doesn't mean that their books are unreliable but that they present one view of events.The Black Book of Communism is a controversial book, whose author has been criticised by historians such as Amir Weiner because "Courtois, in his argument for the hundred million figure, was explicitly attacking what he called 'the international Jewish community' for emphasizing the crimes of Hitler in a way that displaced the much greater crimes of communism. Blame the Jews: that argument leaves The Black Book tainted". Either way, that is besides the point.
Regarding
Truth Is King 24's comment that The "dictatorship of the proletariat"? That seems pretty clear to me
, I believe
The Four Deuces' comment still applies, for there are and have been different interpretations. There is the Marxist–Leninist's interpretation but there are also many other interpretations. We have Marx and Engels themselves stating the Paris Commune as an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat which was based on universal suffrage, with recallable delegates, no standing army and I think private property was still there. In addition, we have had communists literally criticising and being persecuted for this already in 1918; we have communists such as the Socialist Party of Great Britain stating as soon as they took power that the Bolsheviks were going to establish state-capitalism (again, this was decades before academics took up the concept). So it is a myth to claim that communists and other socialists criticised the Soviet Union ipso facto. This is just further proof that communism is simply not as one-dimensional as fascism, which has no anti-authoritarian, democratic, libertarian, or even liberal wing or interpretation. Still, I reiterate my belief to exclude any ideology from the categories here and simply add authoritarianism as category on a case-by-case an analysis based on reliable sources and main body of each ideology's article.
Davide King (
talk)
13:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
This comment by The Four Deuces is also on point:
The same applies to the Soviet Union. While their system is frequently referred to as socialism, only Marxist-Leninists consider it to be so in reality. The issue is whether or not the economy was in the control of the Soviet working class and whether the Communist Party of the Soviet Union represented them in a democratic way. And the same applies to Bismark's state socialism or to reference any other capitalist society as socialist.
As far as I am aware, it is mainly anti-Communist and Marxist–Leninists who believe that the Soviet Union et al. were socialist, albeit for vastly different, opposing reasons. I am not aware of any consensus among scholars and I wish there was because I really want to what the hell was going on there as economic system. I think whether or not the economy was in the control of the Soviet working class and whether the Communist Party of the Soviet Union represented them in a democratic way
is a good way to start analysing whether their system was actually socialist, or still capitalism, or neither, or a combination of sorts and something totally new.
Davide King (
talk)
13:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Your participation is invited at Category talk:Communism § Categorization of Communism, Totalitarianism, Authoritarianism. Thanks, Le v!v ich 03:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
KIENGIR, you have re-added both fascism and Marxism–Leninism, but both are already subcategories of Authoritarianism by the virtue of Totalitarianism being a subcategory of Authoritarianism, so it is redundant and Levivich's reading of SUBCAT is correct. Davide King ( talk) 11:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I have the same opinion here as in my comment just now at the parallel discussion at Talk:Totalitarianism. In short, Authoritarianism should only be in Category:Authoritarianism and not any of its parent categories or child categories, per WP:Categorization guideline. Le v!v ich 19:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Looks like the above article was put together rather recently as a student assignment. I came across it because it's an orphan. I don't have the knowledge base to evaluate whether or not it's a bunch of hooey that should be deleted (although it seems suspect to be going back to 3000 BCE). Can anyone watchlisting this have a look? ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Authoritarianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
108.44.207.154 ( talk) 08:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
poland 1981-1989 military goverment
Interesting that during a period of unprecedented lockdowns throughout the West for the first time in decades, this page is not up for discussion by ordinary people. Another unjust lockdown? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.229.153 ( talk) 07:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
List is supposed to list "examples of states which are currently or frequently characterized as authoritarian" - sole linked source for Poland is about moving in that direction (with clickbait title, with article text not supporting it for Poland). (though I suspect that at least accusations are also appearing elsewhere) Mateusz Konieczny ( talk) 00:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Two discussions have started on the talk page for Talk:Far-left politics that may be of interest to editors here:
Uninvolved editors are needed, please join the discussion. // Timothy :: talk 08:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
BOLD edits were made to add Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany to the list of authoritarian countries in this article. An editor reverted those additions, but they did not -- as required to by WP:BRD -- start a discussion on this talk page about the edits. Instead, when the edits were restored by myself, the editor reverted again, thus taking the first step in edit warring. (Judging by their comments on their talk page, they do not understand what, exactly, edit warring is, although they are convinced that they do.)
Here, then, is the beginning of a discussion which the reverting editor failed to begin.
I grew up understanding that Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were totalitarian states, similar in that respect to the Communist Soviet Union. However, as an adult, having read extensively on the subject, I have noted that historians and other scholars are actually somewhat divided on whether those regimes were totalitarian or authoritarian. I believe that convincing arguments can be made either way, but the fact of the matter is that I do not perceive that there is a settled consensus about the question. For this reason, I think that the inclusion of those countries in this article is justified, especially if they are accompanied by a note mentioning the scholarly dispute about the nature of the regimes.
I'm posting this to get the opinions of other editors, and perhaps reach a consensus about whether those countries should or should not be included in this article. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
They are obviously authoritarian regimes. Totalitarianism is a form of authoritarianism, so there's nothing contradictory about saying those regimes were both. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
In order words, while the Nazis aspired to a totalitarian state, they were unable to penetrate deeply enough into all aspects of life in order to create a totalitarian society. And, of course, a state which is not quite totalitarian is an authoritarian state. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)The careful empirical examination of the political behaviour of the population contradicts the concept, inspired by the theory of totalitarianism, of the individual robbed of all social and spiritual links, 'atomized' and thus totally exposed to the power of indoctrination. To a certain extent even the partially existing Volksgemeinschaft speaks against such an idea
While little doubt can exist about the totalitarian character of the Nazi Weltanschauung and the primacy of monopolized politics ... it is all the more clear that the implementation of totalitarian power encountered limits in many areas of society. In order to give a relistic description of the historical reality of life it is therefore insufficient simply to portray the totalitarian intentions of the regime -- provable at every turn because they were so loudly proclaimed by Nazi propaganda. The decisive question is in which areas, at which juncture and how extensively these demands could be met. This perspective opens up a picture of niches, free space and private preserves which National Socialism was either unable to fill or could do so only to a limited degree: above all in the spheres of mass culture, the arts and religion, but also in many areas of technical civilization and everyday life.
-- Frei, Norbert (1993) National Socialist Rule in Germany: The Führer State 1933-1945 Oxford: Blackwell. p.151. ISBN 0-631-18507-0
Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Authoritarianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are some wrong things about the articles. Kostas1488 ( talk) 12:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Authoritarianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the following text:
Authoritarian regimes are also sometimes subcategorized by whether they are personalistic or populist.[47] Personalistic authoritarian regimes are characterized by arbitrary rule and authority exercised "mainly through patronage networks and coercion rather than through institutions and formal rules".[47] Personalistic authoritarian regimes have been seen in post-colonial Africa. By contrast, populist authoritarian regimes "are mobilizational regimes in which a strong, charismatic, manipulative leader rules through a coalition involving key lower-class groups".[47] Examples include Argentina under Jua Perón,[47] Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser[47] and Venezuela under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro.[54][55]
into:
Authoritarian regimes are also sometimes subcategorized by whether they are personalistic or populist.[47] Personalistic authoritarian regimes are characterized by arbitrary rule and authority exercised "mainly through patronage networks and coercion rather than through institutions and formal rules".[47] Personalistic authoritarian regimes have been seen in post-colonial Africa. By contrast, populist authoritarian regimes "are mobilizational regimes in which a strong, charismatic, manipulative leader rules through a coalition involving key lower-class groups".[47] Examples include Argentina under Jua Perón,[47] Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser[47] and Venezuela under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro.[54][55]
Personalist regimes differ from other regime types in that their inner circle is very small and arbitrarily assembled by the dictator according to criteria like personal friendship, loyalty or ties of kinship – the keyword here is trust. The personalist dictator chooses a select few to assist him in governing. In exchange for their loyalty they can share in the fruits of office. In non-personalist regimes this group is usually bigger and can coalesce into blocks or fractions that collaborate to formulate policy and is able to influence or control the dictator. However, under personal rule the balance of power is significantly tilted in favor of the leader, resulting in even fewer checks on his power. As such dictators favor loyalty over competence and in general distrust intelligentsia, members of the winning coalition often do not possess professional political careers and are ill-equipped to manage the tasks of the office bestowed on them. Without the dictator’s blessing they would never have acquired a position of power and if he is ousted chances are slim they will maintain their position. The dictator knows this and therefore uses such divide-and-rule tactics to keep his inner circle from coordinating actions (like coups) against him. The result is that such regimes have no internal checks and balances, and are thus unrestrained when exerting repression on their people, making radical shifts in foreign policy, or even starting wars (with other countries.) [1] Peonski ( talk) 09:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
edit protected}}
template again. Regards,
Goldsztajn (
talk)
04:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)This
edit request to
Authoritarianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In "Examples" add Bulgaria under "Historical", "Time Period" should be "2009 - 2021 (with a brief pause in 2013)". "Ruling group or person" should be GERB party/ Boyko Borisov". In notes and refferences "Boyko Borisov is speculated to have been part of organised crime groups during the 90s. During the course of his rule, strived to centalize power around himself and/or close associates. Used populism, corporate and media pressure as well as election frauds on national and regional elections. 94.236.233.220 ( talk) 17:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I see the list of countries as problematic as it highlights de facto democracies as authoritarian. Even though there are sources I don’t see how that motivates the selection. If, for example Hungary is a “flawed democracy”. If countries in this category should be considered authoritarian the list should be much longer and include all of Balkan and most of Eastern Europe. 94.234.51.247 ( talk) 14:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
You made India as authoritarian country since 2014. But you don't mention where you got the information. As a political science scholar I don't think it is a right information. Make sure you update it with proper source. 47.29.141.7 ( talk) 13:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Canada is an authoritarian government 2001:569:BD32:C400:C851:F82A:A29:552C ( talk) 04:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Another thing I wanted to add is Australia should be considered. They introduced exit visas, which obviously breaks freedom of movement, and they also limited movement to a few hours per day in distance limited to few miles from home, with police checks controlling this. Also same issues with personal and economic freedoms as Canada - including declaring protets illegal (which btw was not done in Poland, which made it to this list). They also broke their constituion, which on the other hand was enough for Poland to make it onto this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymhn ( talk • contribs) 17:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
This article uses judgmental language, states opinions as facts (or at least strongly implies they are facts), and is overtly biased against authoritarianism, and is therefore not neutral as required. Rather than including only criticisms of why authoritarianism is bad (which is obviously biased), there should be at minimum a section that lists the benefits of authoritarianism. Many sources that discuss the benefits of authoritarianism will not be from the "West", which if that is why they are discarded, is yet another bias. I am not an expert in the field, so here are some sources I found while focusing on the authoritarian government of China, although there are likely better ones...
What the West Gets Wrong About China [1]
China hopes to flaunt the merits of its political system over America’s [2]
Six advantages of China's political system [3]
Advantages of China's political system: Points for stability [4]
China's Economic Growth, Its Causes, Pros, Cons, and Future [5]
I am including these because they clearly show that there are many people in unexpected places who see the benefits of authoritarianism, and not including their viewpoint is not neutral...
1/4 of Americans qualify as highly 'right-wing authoritarian,' new poll finds [6]
U.S. Conservatives Are Uniquely Inclined Toward Right-Wing Authoritarianism Compared to Western Peers [7]
Subs99 ( talk) 08:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Authoritarianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
India is a democracy, false information to spread hate against hate against India have edited this article to put India on the list. 2607:FEA8:5AA0:B570:899C:6893:2B6D:BC68 ( talk) 12:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
India is listed as Authoritarian government since 2014, there is no credible proof. The elections have been fair and terming a democratically elected government as Authoritarian is against the very democracy. 98.43.97.37 ( talk) 09:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
The page may have been vandalized during the run up to the assembly elections in India during early 2022 as part of a wider disinformation campaign by political parties hoping to cash in on negative public opinion about the incumbent government(s).
Section: Current Examples
Disputed Information: Inclusion of India under Mr. Narendra Modi as an example of an authoritarian country.
Correct Information.
India does not fulfil criteria for authoritarian government due to the presence of free and fair elections and an independent judiciary, as defined in the opening paragraphs of the article itself and citation number 7. As recently as 10 March 2022, the ruling party (BJP) has lost elections in the Punjab, a major state on the mainland, and narrowly won in another.
The federal structure also means that state governments don't necessarily follow the central government's directions or even have the same party ruling both the center and the state as evidenced by the following data:
Incumbent alliance in the central government: National Democratic Alliance(NDA) consisting of both right and left wing parties. Number of states ruled by NDA: 17
Main Opposition Alliance: United Progressive Alliance(UPA) consisting of left wing and centrist parties. Number of states ruled by (UPA): 5
Number of states ruled by unaffiliated opposition parties consisting of parties representing leftist, centrist, right wing and linguistic interests: 8
This is open source data and is also available on the following page:
The following are references confirming that India definitely is not an authoritarian country.
These news pieces dispute the authoritarian classification for India:
Engihistorian ( talk) 08:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Authoritarianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The following information "India 2014– Narendra Modi [164][165][166]" is not factually correct and i have added relevant links to the talk page. Please add a [disputed-discuss] or [dubious-discuss] flag after the content. [1]
Engihistorian ( talk) 08:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
References
which are currently or frequently characterized as authoritarian.ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 20:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- a discussion about how authoritarian regimes decline or fall would be interesting. Do they ever get less authoritarian? (!) Lawrence18uk ( talk) 06:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Authoritarianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the section Historical Trends, there is a typo that reads: According to Charles H. Fairbanks Jr., "all the new states that stumbled out of the ruins of the Soviet bloc, except Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, seemed indeed to be moving toward democracy in the early 1990s" as where the countries of East Central Europe and the Balkans.
It should read: moving toward democracy in the early 1990s" as were the countries of East Central Europe 208.100.180.29 ( talk) 23:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Authoritarianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ruskovishere ( talk) 16:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I want to add some leaders who were authoritarian like Boyko Borissov of Bulgaria 2009-2021
This
edit request to
Authoritarianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
JTDG2005 ( talk) 06:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Should Malaysia's UMNO regime count as authoritarianism?
The two images are related to TOTALITARIANISM and not authoritarianism. Inb4, yes, the former is an extreme form of the latter but it is also viewed as a distinct form of state-political order (there's a separate article on it, after all). My suggestion is to add Putin and/or someone simillar, for example, if you want there to be a main image about authoritarianism in this article.
Hi all! I just made an edit to this page where I added two images of Nazi Germany and North Korea as examples of authoritarian governments. User @ Ентусиастъ: brought up an interesting point and reverted my addition of the images, on the grounds of the quote at the top. I wanted to start a discussion here as to whether this reversion was correct. If the reversion was correct, what would be a good example of a country that is authoritarian but not totalitarian for the images? TraderCharlotte ( talk) 16:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
"An authoritarian regimes" - should be singular. I guess there's probably a good reason for this article being locked, but it sure does make the process for fixing a typo more difficult... 75.166.162.210 ( talk) 21:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I propose merging Ideocracy into Authoritarianism. I think the content in Ideocracy can easily be explained in the context of Authoritarianism, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Authoritarianism. The concept "Ideocracy" is borderline notable. The content is only worth keeping as a brief mention in the Authoritarianism article. Thenightaway ( talk) 15:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Authoritarianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change ((Ahmed Sekou Touré)) to ((Ahmed Sékou Touré)) 2601:541:4580:8500:E86D:7B38:4939:5344 ( talk) 19:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Authoritarianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add mahinda rajapaksha and Rajapaksha family government Sri Lanka 2004-2015 and 2019-2022 105.184.194.168 ( talk) 13:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Authoritarianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I don't think Malaysia was authoritarian from 1957 to 2018. It was authoritarian when two Prime Ministers named Mahathir Mohamad and Najib Razak were in power. This means Malaysia was authoritarian between 1981 to 2003 and 2009 to 2018. I remember when Najib Razak was in power, he silenced and jailed his opponents as any other autocrat can do. He was also a corrupt man because he stole money from the 1MDB to buy his wife luxurious things like handbags and jewelry. His wife is like the Imelda Marcos of the 21st century. I only know Mahathir Mohamad for dominating politics and being a strong man. 115.84.95.216 ( talk) 04:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm currently reviewing this list because a lot of it isn't true. As I said in a long edit summary, Poland is not authoritarian (Hungary isn't really either but it has elements of authoritarianism). Poland is rated as a "free" country by Freedom House, Hungary is "partly free" (although Hungary does rank as the most free "partly free" country on the list). Sure, there were a few sources, but plenty of sources have described the governments of other Western countries (especially America) generally considered to be free as "authoritarian", even though it's absolutely not. As for, American politics:
I did a Google search and could also find some results using the term to describe the current and/or recent (i.e 2010s and 2020s) governments of other Western democracies typically described as free, including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, the European Union and its members, Japan, Nauru, New Zealand, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan and the United Kingdom, just to name a few. But these countries don't get listed because they simply aren't authoritarian, illiberal democracies or even semi-authoritarian democracies in any way, shape or form. Thiscouldbeauser ( talk) 01:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Turkmenistan is a pretty authoritarian country so I suggest adding Turkmenistan in the current examples tab. Some sources to back up my claims: https://carnegieendowment.org/2017/01/30/turkmenistan-at-twenty-five-high-price-of-authoritarianism-pub-67839 and https://freedomhouse.org/country/turkmenistan/freedom-world/2021. Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki ( talk) 04:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Jair Bolsonaro was the former President of Brazil from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2022. His rule was pretty authoritarian.Here's the link: https://en.as.com/latest_news/brazil-election-what-are-some-of-jair-bolsonaros-most-controversial-quotes-n/ 115.84.95.229 ( talk) 04:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.84.94.118 ( talk)
I think Finland can also be classified as authoritarian during Urho Kekkonen´s term, at least in the 70´s.-- 85.194.208.163 ( talk) 11:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
I suggest adding the times Mexico was authoritarian. When it was under Santa Anna during 1833-1855 (He left office and came back later quite often), Porfirio Díaz 1876-1911(He left office 2 times to let his allies have office but later he would come back), and the political party PRI (which ruled Mexico without leaving office from 1929-2000 when it lost the presidential election that year). Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki ( talk) 22:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
This year, Indonesia's parliament passed a new penal code which criminalized premarital sex. The new criminal code recriminalized insulting the President, state institutions, and Indonesia’s national ideology (a.k.a Pancasila). Some sources say Indonesia is becoming authoritarian again. Here are the sources: https://www.fairplanet.org/editors-pick/indonesias-new-criminal-code-is-a-step-toward-authoritarianism/ and https://thediplomat.com/2022/12/indonesias-latest-tilt-toward-authoritarianism/ 115.84.95.229 ( talk) 04:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Interesting Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki ( talk) 22:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Since I am from that area of the world, I would like to correct you that only Republika Srpska is authoritarian. Every nation in B&H has their leaders which behave in similar if not same manner. Try to make a better research on the topic and then write an article. This way, you (whoever wrote this) are misleading the readers. 188.169.201.122 ( talk) 20:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Who decided to add "earth" as a example of authoritarianism? Like why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki ( talk • contribs) 04:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
What on earth is "bgc"? Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki ( talk) 21:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Am I an idiot and missing something or what? Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki ( talk) 21:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Wasn't East Germany authoritarian?-- 82.128.136.247 ( talk) 13:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I suggest we split the Examples area into a new article, it is large and vague, but has enough referencing. EXAMPLE: List of totalitarian regimes Miggly69 ( talk) 03:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Authoritarianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change
"The foundations of stable authoritarian rule are that the authoritarian prevents contestation from the masses and other elites. The authoritarian regime may use co-optation or repression (or carrots and sticks) to prevent revolts.[43][44] Authoritarian rule entails a balancing act whereby the ruler has to maintain the support of other elites (frequently through the distribution of state and societal resources) and the support of the public (through distribution of the same resources): the authoritarian rule is at risk if the balancing act is lopsided, as it risks a coup by the elites or an uprising by the mass public.[45][46]"
to
"For an authoritarian regime to maintain stability, leaders need to sustain positive good will or avoid push back from masses and other elites [1]. To avoid contestation, different regimes (usually categorized on a scale of how ‘authoritarian’ they/ from where leaders derive power) pursue varying paths [2]. The method of determining which path a regime takes can be summed up with selectorate theory which states that within any electorate, there is a selectorate or the subset of people who have legitimate say in choosing a leader and a winning coalition for the members of the selectorate a leader needs support from to maintain power [3]. Since a leaders’ main goal is assumed to be keeping power, their interactions with elites and the masses and subsequent allocation of private/public goods is often dictated by the size and loyalty of the winning coalition [4].
A leader focuses on elites and gives out private goods usually when the winning coalition is small and loyal, meaning to keep power, they need to keep a ‘select few’ content [5]. In these situations, the masses are often ignored meaning less public goods are usually provided [6]. Instead interaction between leaders and commoners often takes the form of repression or essentially pushing down any (small) number of opposers that may pop up [7]. However, when the winning coalition is larger or there is less loyalty, a leader is usually forced to pay more attention to the masses and provide a greater number of political goods [8]. This is because uprisings can be more powerful and larger in size and therefore appeasement is necessary to quash them early on [9]. In situations like this political control or interaction often takes the form of coercive destruction of materials and/or indoctrination (often via education) [10]. For leaders to maintain their power, the way they interact with masses and other elites is important and usually inextricably linked with selectorate theory [11]. If leaders mess up balancing the needs of the people who keep their position, there is high risk of revolt from elites or uprisings from the masses, therefore striking a proper balance of give and take is integral to avoid loss of power [12]" Nehag24 ( talk) 17:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Authoritarianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to add information about the types of authoritarian regimes mentioned under Typologies/Subtypes (after the Barbara Geddes paragraph starting with “According to…”). Below are the paragraphs I want to add:
Dominant party regimes or single party dictatorships, are authoritarian regimes “in which a single political party controls leadership selection and policy.” [1] Within single-party dictatorships, other parties may legally exist and participate in elections, however “true political power lies with the dominant party.” [2] Structurally, these regimes are the most similar to democracies, and tend to rely on political control to achieve long-term social compliance, thus utilizing less violent methods. [3] [4] Single-party dictatorships may also use infiltration methods of political control, (usually more common in autocratic leaning regimes), in order to discourage opposition and mobilize supporters. [5] In turn, infiltration methods increase preference falsification by creating a false curtain of support among the population, thus aiding the survival of this already longeve regime. [6] [7]
In military regimes or dictatorships, the military is the institution in control within the regime. [8] [9] Military officers then, hold power over who holds leadership positions as well as over the policy processes. [10] It is important to note that in military dictatorships, the military elites are powerful enough to constrain the actions of the regime leader depending on the extent to which the leader depends on the military to enforce repression. [11] [12] An example of a contemporary military dictatorship can be seen in Thailand under the Palang Pracharath party in power since 1969. [13] Compscienjoyer ( talk) 03:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
References
This article currently describes authoritarianism as a "political system", but this doesn't accurately describe the full scope of the concept. Authoritarianism is approach to politics or a political style. The problem is that this article covers authoritarian regimes and authoritarian forms of government instead of the entire concept of authoritarianism. To use the examples given by Glasius (2018): Rodrigo Duterte, Narendra Modi, Viktor Orban, and Donald Trump are all considered "authoritarian". But you'd be hard-pressed to argue that they rule(d) over an authoritarian regime. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 23:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Authoritarianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pita won Thailand's general election this year. So, if Prayut leaves the office this year, put Thailand into the former authoritarian countries list. 115.84.88.190 ( talk) 02:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
In the article several states are listed as authoritarian or formerly authoritarian. However there exists no consistant definition nor common factor for the listed states to be labeled as such. Israel and Hungary for example, these nations are democracies and multipartystates. If these nations can be argued as to being auhtoritarian one could categorise any other democratic nation into the same category. It seems that the list is politicized and not impartial. I would suggest removing it and or changeing it into a more consistant format where the term authoritarian is clearly defined. Superpig05 ( talk) 02:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
References
There's a coup in Gabon that ousted its "authoritarian" leader, Ali Bongo. Should Gabon remain on the current authoritarian list or should it be moved to the former authoritarian list? 202.137.157.50 ( talk) 03:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Is The Sultan of brunei Authoritatian or Just Totalitarian? Should It Be Added? Any Sources? Does This Count If You Literally Have nearly more than 60 years of martial law? 103.196.139.77 ( talk) 08:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I think Thaksin should be on the authoritarian list because during his administration, he launched a war on drugs in 2003 as well as being accused for human rights abuses against Muslims. In the 2006 snap election, he likely rigged the election because the party contesting was the Thai Rak Thai Party. What do you think? 115.84.88.73 ( talk) 05:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I think Japan was authoritarian during the 1930s and the 1940s due to military influence in mainstream politics. During WWII, Japan seem to pretty authoritarian since there were rebels in places Japan invaded. What do you think? 103.43.79.88 ( talk) 02:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
It says that former authoritarian regimes include the US under Donald Trump from 2017-2021. By this pages own methodology, using the democracy index, the United States at that time was still well within the range or Democratic countries and nowhere near the authoritarian regimes which they define as the basic denial of most political and most civil rights which was not the case in the US from 2017-21. Trump was a populist which in many instances causes Democratic backsliding but this does not make a country authoritarian, an authoritarian country can be both authoritarian and have a populist leader but it would be a mistake to conflate the two. If we also included Democratic countries with populist leaders then there would be a lot more countries on here. To me if we keep this here, it shows a significant bias on the part of Wikipedia for disregarding the most authoritative index for determine democracy to date. I would take it off because as recorded, the United States during this time was still a Democratic nation after trumps election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.87.171 ( talk) 14:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
The section of the article titled "Examples" would benefit from references provided by expert WP:SECONDAY sources, rather than the many newspaper articles. For example, the opinion section of Al Jazeera for one. There are many more. Journalistic sensationalism does not equate to an academic standard. 182.239.152.166 ( talk) 21:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
I know that most people here will consider Israel as an "authoritarian regime" after the 2023 judicial reforms but do we think it's appropriate to label it as such during ALL of Netanyahu's terms. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to label it as being an authoritarian regime from 2023 onwards? ReymunNobleJacinto ( talk) 22:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I think there are some more authoritarian regimes that must be mentioned in the examples:
The Kingdom of Nepal
1. Panchayat system under the absolute Kings Mahendra and Birendra from 1961 until the kingdom became a constitutional monarchy in 1990.
2. Under King Gyanendra from 2002 or 2005 to 2006.
1. Military dictatorships
Muhammad Ayub Khan (1958-1969)
General Yahya Khan (1969-1971)
General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq (1977-1988)
General Pervez Musharraf (1999-2007)
Bangladesh (for historical examples only, not for the current example)
1. Mostly under a presidential system and military dictatorships.
Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League under Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (1975) (Note: Since January 25, 1975, Prime Minister Sheikh Mujibur Rahman became President after the fourth amendment of the Constitution of Bangladesh turned Bangladesh into a presidential republic as well as establishing a one-party state a month later due to an ongoing conflict between Mujib's goverment and radical leftists. He declared state of emergency at the same year. he remained an authoritarian leader until he and his family (except his only two daughters) was assassinated in a bloody coup on August 15, 1975.)
2. Khondaker Mostaq Ahmad (from 15 August 1975 until he was ousted by a coup on 6 November 1975)
3. Chief Martial Law Administrator and President Abu Sadat Mohammad Sayem (6 November 1975 to 21 April 1977)
4. Chief Martial Law Administrator and President Ziaur Rahman (21 April 1977 until his assassination on 30 May 1981)
5. Hussain Muhammad Ershad from 1982 to 1990.
1. Indira Gandhi (Note: Only from 1975 to 1977, see The Emergency
Russian Empire (I guess only the semi-constitutional monarchy era because all Russian Emperors are absolute monarchs, but in 1905, it became a semi-constitutional monarchy until the monarchy was abolished in 1917, and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia was the only semi-constitutional monarch in Russia. If you think the House of Romanov is always authoritarian, whether fully absolute or semi-constitutional, then I guess the mention it from the founding of the Russian Empire till the end of the empire in 1917. Otherwise, you don't have to put the Russian Empire on the list of historical examples.)
Nigeria (under military dictatorship) I guess.
Also, I think you should add Thailand's Thaksin Shinawatra into the list of historical examples of authoritarianism. Even though he's democratically elected, but his extrajudicial killings during 'War on Drugs' (similar to the Philippines' Drug war under Rodrigo Duterte, another leader mentioned as authoritarian in the historical examples), as well his possible oppression on the country's Muslim population and the 2006 Thai general election, which looked like he rigged it, made him authoritarian. You can take a look at the links: [1], [2], and [3]. Slimsilkyweave ( talk) 07:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Should we really have these lists of “examples” of authoritarian regimes? It seems pretty hacked together from sources that don’t often directly call one regime authoritarian. A similar List of dictators was deleted for what appear to be similar WP:NPOV issues. — HTGS ( talk) 23:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Gender and authoritarianism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 11 § Gender and authoritarianism until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 05:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Looking at reliable sources, would you describe Marxism-Leninism as an Authoritarian ideology?
Thanks Bacondrum ( talk) 04:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I object to this RfC because we were discussing whether communism (not Communist states or Marxism–Leninism) should stay or be removed as Categories, or at least be reworded to state whether Marxism–Leninism is a core concept of authoritarianism
or whether reliable sources and academic books about authoritarianism routinely mention Marxism–Leninism
, but if we are going through, we have to actually follow it. The opening post correctly states Looking at reliable sources, would you describe
Marxism-Leninism as an Authoritarian ideology?
But neither of those voting for B provided any reliable source to back up their arguments.
Davide King (
talk)
Anti-Communism does not mean opposition to Communism, but opposition to an extreme degree. That doesn't mean that their books are unreliable but that they present one view of events.The Black Book of Communism is a controversial book, whose author has been criticised by historians such as Amir Weiner because "Courtois, in his argument for the hundred million figure, was explicitly attacking what he called 'the international Jewish community' for emphasizing the crimes of Hitler in a way that displaced the much greater crimes of communism. Blame the Jews: that argument leaves The Black Book tainted". Either way, that is besides the point.
Regarding
Truth Is King 24's comment that The "dictatorship of the proletariat"? That seems pretty clear to me
, I believe
The Four Deuces' comment still applies, for there are and have been different interpretations. There is the Marxist–Leninist's interpretation but there are also many other interpretations. We have Marx and Engels themselves stating the Paris Commune as an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat which was based on universal suffrage, with recallable delegates, no standing army and I think private property was still there. In addition, we have had communists literally criticising and being persecuted for this already in 1918; we have communists such as the Socialist Party of Great Britain stating as soon as they took power that the Bolsheviks were going to establish state-capitalism (again, this was decades before academics took up the concept). So it is a myth to claim that communists and other socialists criticised the Soviet Union ipso facto. This is just further proof that communism is simply not as one-dimensional as fascism, which has no anti-authoritarian, democratic, libertarian, or even liberal wing or interpretation. Still, I reiterate my belief to exclude any ideology from the categories here and simply add authoritarianism as category on a case-by-case an analysis based on reliable sources and main body of each ideology's article.
Davide King (
talk)
13:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
This comment by The Four Deuces is also on point:
The same applies to the Soviet Union. While their system is frequently referred to as socialism, only Marxist-Leninists consider it to be so in reality. The issue is whether or not the economy was in the control of the Soviet working class and whether the Communist Party of the Soviet Union represented them in a democratic way. And the same applies to Bismark's state socialism or to reference any other capitalist society as socialist.
As far as I am aware, it is mainly anti-Communist and Marxist–Leninists who believe that the Soviet Union et al. were socialist, albeit for vastly different, opposing reasons. I am not aware of any consensus among scholars and I wish there was because I really want to what the hell was going on there as economic system. I think whether or not the economy was in the control of the Soviet working class and whether the Communist Party of the Soviet Union represented them in a democratic way
is a good way to start analysing whether their system was actually socialist, or still capitalism, or neither, or a combination of sorts and something totally new.
Davide King (
talk)
13:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Your participation is invited at Category talk:Communism § Categorization of Communism, Totalitarianism, Authoritarianism. Thanks, Le v!v ich 03:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
KIENGIR, you have re-added both fascism and Marxism–Leninism, but both are already subcategories of Authoritarianism by the virtue of Totalitarianism being a subcategory of Authoritarianism, so it is redundant and Levivich's reading of SUBCAT is correct. Davide King ( talk) 11:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I have the same opinion here as in my comment just now at the parallel discussion at Talk:Totalitarianism. In short, Authoritarianism should only be in Category:Authoritarianism and not any of its parent categories or child categories, per WP:Categorization guideline. Le v!v ich 19:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Looks like the above article was put together rather recently as a student assignment. I came across it because it's an orphan. I don't have the knowledge base to evaluate whether or not it's a bunch of hooey that should be deleted (although it seems suspect to be going back to 3000 BCE). Can anyone watchlisting this have a look? ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Authoritarianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
108.44.207.154 ( talk) 08:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
poland 1981-1989 military goverment
Interesting that during a period of unprecedented lockdowns throughout the West for the first time in decades, this page is not up for discussion by ordinary people. Another unjust lockdown? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.229.153 ( talk) 07:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
List is supposed to list "examples of states which are currently or frequently characterized as authoritarian" - sole linked source for Poland is about moving in that direction (with clickbait title, with article text not supporting it for Poland). (though I suspect that at least accusations are also appearing elsewhere) Mateusz Konieczny ( talk) 00:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Two discussions have started on the talk page for Talk:Far-left politics that may be of interest to editors here:
Uninvolved editors are needed, please join the discussion. // Timothy :: talk 08:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
BOLD edits were made to add Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany to the list of authoritarian countries in this article. An editor reverted those additions, but they did not -- as required to by WP:BRD -- start a discussion on this talk page about the edits. Instead, when the edits were restored by myself, the editor reverted again, thus taking the first step in edit warring. (Judging by their comments on their talk page, they do not understand what, exactly, edit warring is, although they are convinced that they do.)
Here, then, is the beginning of a discussion which the reverting editor failed to begin.
I grew up understanding that Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were totalitarian states, similar in that respect to the Communist Soviet Union. However, as an adult, having read extensively on the subject, I have noted that historians and other scholars are actually somewhat divided on whether those regimes were totalitarian or authoritarian. I believe that convincing arguments can be made either way, but the fact of the matter is that I do not perceive that there is a settled consensus about the question. For this reason, I think that the inclusion of those countries in this article is justified, especially if they are accompanied by a note mentioning the scholarly dispute about the nature of the regimes.
I'm posting this to get the opinions of other editors, and perhaps reach a consensus about whether those countries should or should not be included in this article. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
They are obviously authoritarian regimes. Totalitarianism is a form of authoritarianism, so there's nothing contradictory about saying those regimes were both. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
In order words, while the Nazis aspired to a totalitarian state, they were unable to penetrate deeply enough into all aspects of life in order to create a totalitarian society. And, of course, a state which is not quite totalitarian is an authoritarian state. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)The careful empirical examination of the political behaviour of the population contradicts the concept, inspired by the theory of totalitarianism, of the individual robbed of all social and spiritual links, 'atomized' and thus totally exposed to the power of indoctrination. To a certain extent even the partially existing Volksgemeinschaft speaks against such an idea
While little doubt can exist about the totalitarian character of the Nazi Weltanschauung and the primacy of monopolized politics ... it is all the more clear that the implementation of totalitarian power encountered limits in many areas of society. In order to give a relistic description of the historical reality of life it is therefore insufficient simply to portray the totalitarian intentions of the regime -- provable at every turn because they were so loudly proclaimed by Nazi propaganda. The decisive question is in which areas, at which juncture and how extensively these demands could be met. This perspective opens up a picture of niches, free space and private preserves which National Socialism was either unable to fill or could do so only to a limited degree: above all in the spheres of mass culture, the arts and religion, but also in many areas of technical civilization and everyday life.
-- Frei, Norbert (1993) National Socialist Rule in Germany: The Führer State 1933-1945 Oxford: Blackwell. p.151. ISBN 0-631-18507-0
Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Authoritarianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are some wrong things about the articles. Kostas1488 ( talk) 12:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Authoritarianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the following text:
Authoritarian regimes are also sometimes subcategorized by whether they are personalistic or populist.[47] Personalistic authoritarian regimes are characterized by arbitrary rule and authority exercised "mainly through patronage networks and coercion rather than through institutions and formal rules".[47] Personalistic authoritarian regimes have been seen in post-colonial Africa. By contrast, populist authoritarian regimes "are mobilizational regimes in which a strong, charismatic, manipulative leader rules through a coalition involving key lower-class groups".[47] Examples include Argentina under Jua Perón,[47] Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser[47] and Venezuela under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro.[54][55]
into:
Authoritarian regimes are also sometimes subcategorized by whether they are personalistic or populist.[47] Personalistic authoritarian regimes are characterized by arbitrary rule and authority exercised "mainly through patronage networks and coercion rather than through institutions and formal rules".[47] Personalistic authoritarian regimes have been seen in post-colonial Africa. By contrast, populist authoritarian regimes "are mobilizational regimes in which a strong, charismatic, manipulative leader rules through a coalition involving key lower-class groups".[47] Examples include Argentina under Jua Perón,[47] Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser[47] and Venezuela under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro.[54][55]
Personalist regimes differ from other regime types in that their inner circle is very small and arbitrarily assembled by the dictator according to criteria like personal friendship, loyalty or ties of kinship – the keyword here is trust. The personalist dictator chooses a select few to assist him in governing. In exchange for their loyalty they can share in the fruits of office. In non-personalist regimes this group is usually bigger and can coalesce into blocks or fractions that collaborate to formulate policy and is able to influence or control the dictator. However, under personal rule the balance of power is significantly tilted in favor of the leader, resulting in even fewer checks on his power. As such dictators favor loyalty over competence and in general distrust intelligentsia, members of the winning coalition often do not possess professional political careers and are ill-equipped to manage the tasks of the office bestowed on them. Without the dictator’s blessing they would never have acquired a position of power and if he is ousted chances are slim they will maintain their position. The dictator knows this and therefore uses such divide-and-rule tactics to keep his inner circle from coordinating actions (like coups) against him. The result is that such regimes have no internal checks and balances, and are thus unrestrained when exerting repression on their people, making radical shifts in foreign policy, or even starting wars (with other countries.) [1] Peonski ( talk) 09:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
edit protected}}
template again. Regards,
Goldsztajn (
talk)
04:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)This
edit request to
Authoritarianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In "Examples" add Bulgaria under "Historical", "Time Period" should be "2009 - 2021 (with a brief pause in 2013)". "Ruling group or person" should be GERB party/ Boyko Borisov". In notes and refferences "Boyko Borisov is speculated to have been part of organised crime groups during the 90s. During the course of his rule, strived to centalize power around himself and/or close associates. Used populism, corporate and media pressure as well as election frauds on national and regional elections. 94.236.233.220 ( talk) 17:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I see the list of countries as problematic as it highlights de facto democracies as authoritarian. Even though there are sources I don’t see how that motivates the selection. If, for example Hungary is a “flawed democracy”. If countries in this category should be considered authoritarian the list should be much longer and include all of Balkan and most of Eastern Europe. 94.234.51.247 ( talk) 14:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
You made India as authoritarian country since 2014. But you don't mention where you got the information. As a political science scholar I don't think it is a right information. Make sure you update it with proper source. 47.29.141.7 ( talk) 13:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Canada is an authoritarian government 2001:569:BD32:C400:C851:F82A:A29:552C ( talk) 04:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Another thing I wanted to add is Australia should be considered. They introduced exit visas, which obviously breaks freedom of movement, and they also limited movement to a few hours per day in distance limited to few miles from home, with police checks controlling this. Also same issues with personal and economic freedoms as Canada - including declaring protets illegal (which btw was not done in Poland, which made it to this list). They also broke their constituion, which on the other hand was enough for Poland to make it onto this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymhn ( talk • contribs) 17:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
This article uses judgmental language, states opinions as facts (or at least strongly implies they are facts), and is overtly biased against authoritarianism, and is therefore not neutral as required. Rather than including only criticisms of why authoritarianism is bad (which is obviously biased), there should be at minimum a section that lists the benefits of authoritarianism. Many sources that discuss the benefits of authoritarianism will not be from the "West", which if that is why they are discarded, is yet another bias. I am not an expert in the field, so here are some sources I found while focusing on the authoritarian government of China, although there are likely better ones...
What the West Gets Wrong About China [1]
China hopes to flaunt the merits of its political system over America’s [2]
Six advantages of China's political system [3]
Advantages of China's political system: Points for stability [4]
China's Economic Growth, Its Causes, Pros, Cons, and Future [5]
I am including these because they clearly show that there are many people in unexpected places who see the benefits of authoritarianism, and not including their viewpoint is not neutral...
1/4 of Americans qualify as highly 'right-wing authoritarian,' new poll finds [6]
U.S. Conservatives Are Uniquely Inclined Toward Right-Wing Authoritarianism Compared to Western Peers [7]
Subs99 ( talk) 08:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Authoritarianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
India is a democracy, false information to spread hate against hate against India have edited this article to put India on the list. 2607:FEA8:5AA0:B570:899C:6893:2B6D:BC68 ( talk) 12:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
India is listed as Authoritarian government since 2014, there is no credible proof. The elections have been fair and terming a democratically elected government as Authoritarian is against the very democracy. 98.43.97.37 ( talk) 09:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
The page may have been vandalized during the run up to the assembly elections in India during early 2022 as part of a wider disinformation campaign by political parties hoping to cash in on negative public opinion about the incumbent government(s).
Section: Current Examples
Disputed Information: Inclusion of India under Mr. Narendra Modi as an example of an authoritarian country.
Correct Information.
India does not fulfil criteria for authoritarian government due to the presence of free and fair elections and an independent judiciary, as defined in the opening paragraphs of the article itself and citation number 7. As recently as 10 March 2022, the ruling party (BJP) has lost elections in the Punjab, a major state on the mainland, and narrowly won in another.
The federal structure also means that state governments don't necessarily follow the central government's directions or even have the same party ruling both the center and the state as evidenced by the following data:
Incumbent alliance in the central government: National Democratic Alliance(NDA) consisting of both right and left wing parties. Number of states ruled by NDA: 17
Main Opposition Alliance: United Progressive Alliance(UPA) consisting of left wing and centrist parties. Number of states ruled by (UPA): 5
Number of states ruled by unaffiliated opposition parties consisting of parties representing leftist, centrist, right wing and linguistic interests: 8
This is open source data and is also available on the following page:
The following are references confirming that India definitely is not an authoritarian country.
These news pieces dispute the authoritarian classification for India:
Engihistorian ( talk) 08:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Authoritarianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The following information "India 2014– Narendra Modi [164][165][166]" is not factually correct and i have added relevant links to the talk page. Please add a [disputed-discuss] or [dubious-discuss] flag after the content. [1]
Engihistorian ( talk) 08:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
References
which are currently or frequently characterized as authoritarian.ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 20:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- a discussion about how authoritarian regimes decline or fall would be interesting. Do they ever get less authoritarian? (!) Lawrence18uk ( talk) 06:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Authoritarianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the section Historical Trends, there is a typo that reads: According to Charles H. Fairbanks Jr., "all the new states that stumbled out of the ruins of the Soviet bloc, except Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, seemed indeed to be moving toward democracy in the early 1990s" as where the countries of East Central Europe and the Balkans.
It should read: moving toward democracy in the early 1990s" as were the countries of East Central Europe 208.100.180.29 ( talk) 23:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Authoritarianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ruskovishere ( talk) 16:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I want to add some leaders who were authoritarian like Boyko Borissov of Bulgaria 2009-2021
This
edit request to
Authoritarianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
JTDG2005 ( talk) 06:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Should Malaysia's UMNO regime count as authoritarianism?
The two images are related to TOTALITARIANISM and not authoritarianism. Inb4, yes, the former is an extreme form of the latter but it is also viewed as a distinct form of state-political order (there's a separate article on it, after all). My suggestion is to add Putin and/or someone simillar, for example, if you want there to be a main image about authoritarianism in this article.
Hi all! I just made an edit to this page where I added two images of Nazi Germany and North Korea as examples of authoritarian governments. User @ Ентусиастъ: brought up an interesting point and reverted my addition of the images, on the grounds of the quote at the top. I wanted to start a discussion here as to whether this reversion was correct. If the reversion was correct, what would be a good example of a country that is authoritarian but not totalitarian for the images? TraderCharlotte ( talk) 16:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
"An authoritarian regimes" - should be singular. I guess there's probably a good reason for this article being locked, but it sure does make the process for fixing a typo more difficult... 75.166.162.210 ( talk) 21:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I propose merging Ideocracy into Authoritarianism. I think the content in Ideocracy can easily be explained in the context of Authoritarianism, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Authoritarianism. The concept "Ideocracy" is borderline notable. The content is only worth keeping as a brief mention in the Authoritarianism article. Thenightaway ( talk) 15:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Authoritarianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change ((Ahmed Sekou Touré)) to ((Ahmed Sékou Touré)) 2601:541:4580:8500:E86D:7B38:4939:5344 ( talk) 19:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Authoritarianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add mahinda rajapaksha and Rajapaksha family government Sri Lanka 2004-2015 and 2019-2022 105.184.194.168 ( talk) 13:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Authoritarianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I don't think Malaysia was authoritarian from 1957 to 2018. It was authoritarian when two Prime Ministers named Mahathir Mohamad and Najib Razak were in power. This means Malaysia was authoritarian between 1981 to 2003 and 2009 to 2018. I remember when Najib Razak was in power, he silenced and jailed his opponents as any other autocrat can do. He was also a corrupt man because he stole money from the 1MDB to buy his wife luxurious things like handbags and jewelry. His wife is like the Imelda Marcos of the 21st century. I only know Mahathir Mohamad for dominating politics and being a strong man. 115.84.95.216 ( talk) 04:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm currently reviewing this list because a lot of it isn't true. As I said in a long edit summary, Poland is not authoritarian (Hungary isn't really either but it has elements of authoritarianism). Poland is rated as a "free" country by Freedom House, Hungary is "partly free" (although Hungary does rank as the most free "partly free" country on the list). Sure, there were a few sources, but plenty of sources have described the governments of other Western countries (especially America) generally considered to be free as "authoritarian", even though it's absolutely not. As for, American politics:
I did a Google search and could also find some results using the term to describe the current and/or recent (i.e 2010s and 2020s) governments of other Western democracies typically described as free, including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, the European Union and its members, Japan, Nauru, New Zealand, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan and the United Kingdom, just to name a few. But these countries don't get listed because they simply aren't authoritarian, illiberal democracies or even semi-authoritarian democracies in any way, shape or form. Thiscouldbeauser ( talk) 01:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Turkmenistan is a pretty authoritarian country so I suggest adding Turkmenistan in the current examples tab. Some sources to back up my claims: https://carnegieendowment.org/2017/01/30/turkmenistan-at-twenty-five-high-price-of-authoritarianism-pub-67839 and https://freedomhouse.org/country/turkmenistan/freedom-world/2021. Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki ( talk) 04:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Jair Bolsonaro was the former President of Brazil from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2022. His rule was pretty authoritarian.Here's the link: https://en.as.com/latest_news/brazil-election-what-are-some-of-jair-bolsonaros-most-controversial-quotes-n/ 115.84.95.229 ( talk) 04:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.84.94.118 ( talk)
I think Finland can also be classified as authoritarian during Urho Kekkonen´s term, at least in the 70´s.-- 85.194.208.163 ( talk) 11:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
I suggest adding the times Mexico was authoritarian. When it was under Santa Anna during 1833-1855 (He left office and came back later quite often), Porfirio Díaz 1876-1911(He left office 2 times to let his allies have office but later he would come back), and the political party PRI (which ruled Mexico without leaving office from 1929-2000 when it lost the presidential election that year). Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki ( talk) 22:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
This year, Indonesia's parliament passed a new penal code which criminalized premarital sex. The new criminal code recriminalized insulting the President, state institutions, and Indonesia’s national ideology (a.k.a Pancasila). Some sources say Indonesia is becoming authoritarian again. Here are the sources: https://www.fairplanet.org/editors-pick/indonesias-new-criminal-code-is-a-step-toward-authoritarianism/ and https://thediplomat.com/2022/12/indonesias-latest-tilt-toward-authoritarianism/ 115.84.95.229 ( talk) 04:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Interesting Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki ( talk) 22:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Since I am from that area of the world, I would like to correct you that only Republika Srpska is authoritarian. Every nation in B&H has their leaders which behave in similar if not same manner. Try to make a better research on the topic and then write an article. This way, you (whoever wrote this) are misleading the readers. 188.169.201.122 ( talk) 20:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Who decided to add "earth" as a example of authoritarianism? Like why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki ( talk • contribs) 04:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
What on earth is "bgc"? Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki ( talk) 21:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Am I an idiot and missing something or what? Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki ( talk) 21:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Wasn't East Germany authoritarian?-- 82.128.136.247 ( talk) 13:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I suggest we split the Examples area into a new article, it is large and vague, but has enough referencing. EXAMPLE: List of totalitarian regimes Miggly69 ( talk) 03:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Authoritarianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change
"The foundations of stable authoritarian rule are that the authoritarian prevents contestation from the masses and other elites. The authoritarian regime may use co-optation or repression (or carrots and sticks) to prevent revolts.[43][44] Authoritarian rule entails a balancing act whereby the ruler has to maintain the support of other elites (frequently through the distribution of state and societal resources) and the support of the public (through distribution of the same resources): the authoritarian rule is at risk if the balancing act is lopsided, as it risks a coup by the elites or an uprising by the mass public.[45][46]"
to
"For an authoritarian regime to maintain stability, leaders need to sustain positive good will or avoid push back from masses and other elites [1]. To avoid contestation, different regimes (usually categorized on a scale of how ‘authoritarian’ they/ from where leaders derive power) pursue varying paths [2]. The method of determining which path a regime takes can be summed up with selectorate theory which states that within any electorate, there is a selectorate or the subset of people who have legitimate say in choosing a leader and a winning coalition for the members of the selectorate a leader needs support from to maintain power [3]. Since a leaders’ main goal is assumed to be keeping power, their interactions with elites and the masses and subsequent allocation of private/public goods is often dictated by the size and loyalty of the winning coalition [4].
A leader focuses on elites and gives out private goods usually when the winning coalition is small and loyal, meaning to keep power, they need to keep a ‘select few’ content [5]. In these situations, the masses are often ignored meaning less public goods are usually provided [6]. Instead interaction between leaders and commoners often takes the form of repression or essentially pushing down any (small) number of opposers that may pop up [7]. However, when the winning coalition is larger or there is less loyalty, a leader is usually forced to pay more attention to the masses and provide a greater number of political goods [8]. This is because uprisings can be more powerful and larger in size and therefore appeasement is necessary to quash them early on [9]. In situations like this political control or interaction often takes the form of coercive destruction of materials and/or indoctrination (often via education) [10]. For leaders to maintain their power, the way they interact with masses and other elites is important and usually inextricably linked with selectorate theory [11]. If leaders mess up balancing the needs of the people who keep their position, there is high risk of revolt from elites or uprisings from the masses, therefore striking a proper balance of give and take is integral to avoid loss of power [12]" Nehag24 ( talk) 17:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Authoritarianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to add information about the types of authoritarian regimes mentioned under Typologies/Subtypes (after the Barbara Geddes paragraph starting with “According to…”). Below are the paragraphs I want to add:
Dominant party regimes or single party dictatorships, are authoritarian regimes “in which a single political party controls leadership selection and policy.” [1] Within single-party dictatorships, other parties may legally exist and participate in elections, however “true political power lies with the dominant party.” [2] Structurally, these regimes are the most similar to democracies, and tend to rely on political control to achieve long-term social compliance, thus utilizing less violent methods. [3] [4] Single-party dictatorships may also use infiltration methods of political control, (usually more common in autocratic leaning regimes), in order to discourage opposition and mobilize supporters. [5] In turn, infiltration methods increase preference falsification by creating a false curtain of support among the population, thus aiding the survival of this already longeve regime. [6] [7]
In military regimes or dictatorships, the military is the institution in control within the regime. [8] [9] Military officers then, hold power over who holds leadership positions as well as over the policy processes. [10] It is important to note that in military dictatorships, the military elites are powerful enough to constrain the actions of the regime leader depending on the extent to which the leader depends on the military to enforce repression. [11] [12] An example of a contemporary military dictatorship can be seen in Thailand under the Palang Pracharath party in power since 1969. [13] Compscienjoyer ( talk) 03:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
References
This article currently describes authoritarianism as a "political system", but this doesn't accurately describe the full scope of the concept. Authoritarianism is approach to politics or a political style. The problem is that this article covers authoritarian regimes and authoritarian forms of government instead of the entire concept of authoritarianism. To use the examples given by Glasius (2018): Rodrigo Duterte, Narendra Modi, Viktor Orban, and Donald Trump are all considered "authoritarian". But you'd be hard-pressed to argue that they rule(d) over an authoritarian regime. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 23:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Authoritarianism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pita won Thailand's general election this year. So, if Prayut leaves the office this year, put Thailand into the former authoritarian countries list. 115.84.88.190 ( talk) 02:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
In the article several states are listed as authoritarian or formerly authoritarian. However there exists no consistant definition nor common factor for the listed states to be labeled as such. Israel and Hungary for example, these nations are democracies and multipartystates. If these nations can be argued as to being auhtoritarian one could categorise any other democratic nation into the same category. It seems that the list is politicized and not impartial. I would suggest removing it and or changeing it into a more consistant format where the term authoritarian is clearly defined. Superpig05 ( talk) 02:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
References
There's a coup in Gabon that ousted its "authoritarian" leader, Ali Bongo. Should Gabon remain on the current authoritarian list or should it be moved to the former authoritarian list? 202.137.157.50 ( talk) 03:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Is The Sultan of brunei Authoritatian or Just Totalitarian? Should It Be Added? Any Sources? Does This Count If You Literally Have nearly more than 60 years of martial law? 103.196.139.77 ( talk) 08:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I think Thaksin should be on the authoritarian list because during his administration, he launched a war on drugs in 2003 as well as being accused for human rights abuses against Muslims. In the 2006 snap election, he likely rigged the election because the party contesting was the Thai Rak Thai Party. What do you think? 115.84.88.73 ( talk) 05:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I think Japan was authoritarian during the 1930s and the 1940s due to military influence in mainstream politics. During WWII, Japan seem to pretty authoritarian since there were rebels in places Japan invaded. What do you think? 103.43.79.88 ( talk) 02:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
It says that former authoritarian regimes include the US under Donald Trump from 2017-2021. By this pages own methodology, using the democracy index, the United States at that time was still well within the range or Democratic countries and nowhere near the authoritarian regimes which they define as the basic denial of most political and most civil rights which was not the case in the US from 2017-21. Trump was a populist which in many instances causes Democratic backsliding but this does not make a country authoritarian, an authoritarian country can be both authoritarian and have a populist leader but it would be a mistake to conflate the two. If we also included Democratic countries with populist leaders then there would be a lot more countries on here. To me if we keep this here, it shows a significant bias on the part of Wikipedia for disregarding the most authoritative index for determine democracy to date. I would take it off because as recorded, the United States during this time was still a Democratic nation after trumps election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.87.171 ( talk) 14:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
The section of the article titled "Examples" would benefit from references provided by expert WP:SECONDAY sources, rather than the many newspaper articles. For example, the opinion section of Al Jazeera for one. There are many more. Journalistic sensationalism does not equate to an academic standard. 182.239.152.166 ( talk) 21:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
I know that most people here will consider Israel as an "authoritarian regime" after the 2023 judicial reforms but do we think it's appropriate to label it as such during ALL of Netanyahu's terms. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to label it as being an authoritarian regime from 2023 onwards? ReymunNobleJacinto ( talk) 22:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I think there are some more authoritarian regimes that must be mentioned in the examples:
The Kingdom of Nepal
1. Panchayat system under the absolute Kings Mahendra and Birendra from 1961 until the kingdom became a constitutional monarchy in 1990.
2. Under King Gyanendra from 2002 or 2005 to 2006.
1. Military dictatorships
Muhammad Ayub Khan (1958-1969)
General Yahya Khan (1969-1971)
General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq (1977-1988)
General Pervez Musharraf (1999-2007)
Bangladesh (for historical examples only, not for the current example)
1. Mostly under a presidential system and military dictatorships.
Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League under Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (1975) (Note: Since January 25, 1975, Prime Minister Sheikh Mujibur Rahman became President after the fourth amendment of the Constitution of Bangladesh turned Bangladesh into a presidential republic as well as establishing a one-party state a month later due to an ongoing conflict between Mujib's goverment and radical leftists. He declared state of emergency at the same year. he remained an authoritarian leader until he and his family (except his only two daughters) was assassinated in a bloody coup on August 15, 1975.)
2. Khondaker Mostaq Ahmad (from 15 August 1975 until he was ousted by a coup on 6 November 1975)
3. Chief Martial Law Administrator and President Abu Sadat Mohammad Sayem (6 November 1975 to 21 April 1977)
4. Chief Martial Law Administrator and President Ziaur Rahman (21 April 1977 until his assassination on 30 May 1981)
5. Hussain Muhammad Ershad from 1982 to 1990.
1. Indira Gandhi (Note: Only from 1975 to 1977, see The Emergency
Russian Empire (I guess only the semi-constitutional monarchy era because all Russian Emperors are absolute monarchs, but in 1905, it became a semi-constitutional monarchy until the monarchy was abolished in 1917, and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia was the only semi-constitutional monarch in Russia. If you think the House of Romanov is always authoritarian, whether fully absolute or semi-constitutional, then I guess the mention it from the founding of the Russian Empire till the end of the empire in 1917. Otherwise, you don't have to put the Russian Empire on the list of historical examples.)
Nigeria (under military dictatorship) I guess.
Also, I think you should add Thailand's Thaksin Shinawatra into the list of historical examples of authoritarianism. Even though he's democratically elected, but his extrajudicial killings during 'War on Drugs' (similar to the Philippines' Drug war under Rodrigo Duterte, another leader mentioned as authoritarian in the historical examples), as well his possible oppression on the country's Muslim population and the 2006 Thai general election, which looked like he rigged it, made him authoritarian. You can take a look at the links: [1], [2], and [3]. Slimsilkyweave ( talk) 07:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Should we really have these lists of “examples” of authoritarian regimes? It seems pretty hacked together from sources that don’t often directly call one regime authoritarian. A similar List of dictators was deleted for what appear to be similar WP:NPOV issues. — HTGS ( talk) 23:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Gender and authoritarianism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 11 § Gender and authoritarianism until a consensus is reached. Utopes ( talk / cont) 05:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)