1. POLI 214 Introduction to Comparative Politics
Session 8 AUTHORITARIANISM AND TOTALITARIANISM PART II
Lecturer: Dr. Maame Adwoa A. Gyekye-Jandoh
Contact Information:

2. Session Overview
In this session, we will discuss charismatic authority, traditional authority, and rational authority as some of the ways by which non-democratic regimes can attain legitimacy. You will appreciate why regimes that come to power through illegitimate means may end up gaining legitimacy from the people.
You will also learn about the various types of nondemocratic rule - personal and monarchical rule; military rule; one-party rule; theocracy; and illiberal regimes. This knowledge will help you understand the various types of non-democratic regimes in the world.
Finally, you will be provided reasons for the end of non-democratic regimes and also given evidence to prove that the number of non-democratic regimes in the world is declining.

3. Session Outline
The key topics to be covered in this session are as follows:
Topic One: Non-Democratic Regimes and Legitimacy
Topic Two: Types of Non-Democratic Regimes
Topic Three: The End of Non-Democratic Regimes

4. Reading List
O’Neil, Patrick (2007). Essentials of Comparative Politics. New York, London: Norton.
Linz, Juan (2000). Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Huntington, Samuel (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Olson, Mancur (1993). “Dictatorship, Democracy and Development”, American Political Science Review 87, no. 3. September:

5. NON-democratic regimes and legitimacy
Topic One
NON-democratic regimes and legitimacy

6. Non-Democratic Regimes and Charismatic Authority
Non-democratic regimes may rely on charismatic authority either genuinely or through the building of personality cult to establish legitimacy. By virtue of the charisma of the leader, the public may strongly support the regime, believing that the leader is indispensable and that their wellbeing is tied to his leadership.
Examples of non-democratic regimes that gained legitimacy as a result of charismatic leadership include China under Mao Zedong, the Soviet Union under Stalin and Germany under Hitler. This form of legitimacy is rooted in the tremendous personal following and power of the leader.

7. Non-Democratic Regimes and Traditional Authority
Non-democratic regimes may also draw legitimacy from traditional authority. The public may embrace and support a non-democratic regime if the leader is seen as someone coming from established traditional authority of the country.
In the Middle East, for example, the non-democratic regimes have gained legitimacy because the leaders come from a long family tradition of royalty. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is considered a legitimate government because the ruler is a prince from the royal family. In North Korea, Kim Jong Il’s legitimacy rested not only on personality cult but on the fact that he was the son of the founder of the country, Kim Il Sung.

8. Non-Democratic Regimes and Rational Authority
Some non-democratic regimes use the claim of rational approach to development to gain the legitimacy needed to rule their people.
In this situation, the leaders succeed in convincing the people that they are technocrats who understand the art of governance better than any government they will get from a democracy.
Most governments in Asia and Latin America used claims of technocratic expertise to legitimise authoritarian rule in their countries.

9. In Summary
Non-democratic regimes can attain legitimacy through one of three ways.
These include through the charisma of a leader; through the claim to traditional heritage as a member of the ruling family; or through rational authority derived from providing economic development to the people.
Monarchies attain legitimacy through claim to family lineage. Most Asian countries have non-democratic regimes that derived legitimacy through rational authority.

10. Questions to Consider
Explain how an authoritarian government can achieve legitimacy through charismatic authority.
Do all authoritarian governments gain legitimacy?
Distinguish between traditional authority and rational authority. Which, in your view, is more likely to confer legitimacy on an authoritarian government, and why?

11. Types of non-democratic regimes
Topic Two
Types of non-democratic regimes

12. Personal and Monarchical Rule
Personal and monarchical rule is the type of regime which is based on the power of a single strong leader who gains legitimacy to rule through traditional authority and/or charismatic authority.
Under personal rule, the whole apparatus of the state is considered to be at the disposal and discretion of the leader. Because the leader has all the power and resources of the state at his disposal, he may rely on the use of patrimonialism to sustain legitimacy.

13. Personal and Monarchical Rule (contd.)
Patrimonialism is a practice in which the ruler depends on a few groups of supporters who enjoy benefits from the state to enforce the will of the ruler.
Mobutu Sese Seko relied on patrimonialism to rule Zaire from 1965 to The Middle East is a region where monarchy and personal rule is still in practice. However, events in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya in 2011 may soon bring about sweeping changes to the monarchical systems existing in the region.

14. Military Rule
Military rule is the type of government that relies on the monopoly of violence to legitimize its rule. Military rule mostly emerges from a coup d’état conducted by military forces to remove a government that is deemed to be losing legitimacy and control of the country.
Military regimes are often characterized by the use of terror to intimidate and silence their critics. Military regimes became common in Latin America, Africa and Asia for a greater part of the Twentieth Century.

15. One-Party Rule
One-party rule occurs when a single political party monopolises political power, usually by banning all other parties from participating in the political process. This is a type of totalitarian regime.
Ghana under Nkrumah experimented with one-party rule for a short period.
One-party rule is usually sustained through co-optation and coercion. Party members are often mobilized and motivated through clientelism. They spread the government’s development achievements to the citizens and also transmit information from the people back to the government.
One-party rulers rely on the party’s supporters to project an image of legitimacy to the outside world.

16. Theocracy
Theocracy is a form of non-democratic rule where the leader draws his authority from “Divine powers”.
Theocracy literally means “rule by God”, but it is normally a government headed by men who claim to be acting by God’s will.
Under theocracy, there is complete merger of state and religion. The laws of the country are rooted in religious teachings and belief. There are very few countries that practice a system of government which come close to a pure theocracy.
The rule of the Ayatollah after the 1979 revolution in Iran came close to theocracy. Afghanistan under the Taliban from 1996 to 2001 also came close to theocracy.

17. Illiberal Regimes
Illiberal Regimes are regimes that are not democratic, but not completely authoritarian or totalitarian in nature. They are “partially free” but not truly free.
Illiberal regimes are in a grey area between democratic and non-democratic rule.
In most African countries, the democratic institutions are weak and leaders do not ensure full guarantee of fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens. The weak democracies of Africa fall under this form of non-democratic rule.

18. In Summary There are five different types of non-democratic regimes.
These include monarchies/personal rule; military rule; one-party rule; theocracy; and illiberal regimes. All of these types, with the exception of theocracy, can be found in Africa. Most African regimes are close to illiberal regimes.

19. Questions to Consider
List and explain any three forms of non-democratic rule.
Explain why one-party rule is considered non-democratic.
Distinguish between monarchy and theocracy
Why are many African governments considered as illiberal regimes?

20. The end of non-democratic regimes
Topic Three
The end of non-democratic regimes

21. Proof of Decline of Non-Democratic Regimes
The period following the First World War witnessed a tremendous increase in non-democratic regimes in the world.
Authoritarianism and totalitarianism were seen as the forms of government which were suitable to solve the problems associated with economic recession.
It was believed that communism and fascism provided radical ways of restructuring states, markets and societies. It was believed that the masses will accept the rule of strong men. This contributed to the rise of dictators in Europe.
African leaders who led their various countries into independence also bought into the belief that they had to be strong men in order to rule their countries.

22. Proof of Decline (contd.)
By the 1970s, non-democratic regimes were making way for democratic governments.
The number of countries in the world that considered themselves as fully free increased by 20 per cent. Between 1974 and 2004, countries classified as “not free” and “partly free” declined from nearly three-quarters of the world to less than half. More African countries became democratic during this period, thus joining the league of “free nations”.
Recent development in the Middle East is clear proof that the world is witnessing the end of non-democratic rule in that region of the world.

23. Why the Decline of Non-Democratic Rule?
The major reason why non-democratic regimes are in decline is the end of ideology as the dominant force in political and economic restructuring. The end of ideology led to the decline of totalitarian regimes which were based on ideology as the overriding force.
The end of World War II also contributed to the decline of non-democratic regimes. The defeat of Hitler led to the end of the ‘Third Reich’ in Germany and the downfall of the fascist regime in Italy.
It was the end of the Cold War, however, that unleashed democratic forces which contributed immensely to the demise of many non-democratic regimes in Eastern Europe and Africa.
This was as a result of the fact that communism and fascism were eliminated as alternative ideologies for state control.
In Africa, democratic forces were aided by external pressure to end non-democratic regimes on the continent. There are good signs that the days of strong men and dictators are over, as citizens across the world are clamouring for freedom and economic well-being.

24. In Summary
This second topic has been devoted to understanding the rise and fall of non-democratic regimes in the world. The rise of communism and fascism after World War I led to a proliferation of non-democratic regimes. The end of the Cold War saw a global decline in non-democratic regimes.

25. Questions to Consider
Explain the rise of non-democratic regimes after the end of the First World War
Discuss how the end of ideology led to the decline of non-democratic regimes
What factors or events do you think could lead to another rise of non-democratic regimes in the world?

26. Conclusion of Session 8
In this session, we have discussed the interesting phenomenon of non-democratic regimes gaining legitimacy. We have also delved into the types of non-democratic regimes and learned that some African countries are operating illiberal regimes.
Finally, we discussed the decline of non-democratic regimes in the world and the reasons for this. In Session 9, we will examine Democracy, and what democratic regimes are all about.

27. References
O’Neil, Patrick (2007). Essentials of Comparative Politics. New York, London: Norton.
Linz, Juan (2000). Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Huntington, Samuel (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Olson, Mancur (1993). “Dictatorship, Democracy and Development”, American Political Science Review 87, no. 3. September: