What distinguishes an authoritarian government from a democratic one?

authoritarianism, Authoritarian regimes are systems of government that have no turnover in power of the executive and do not afford their citizens civil liberties or political rights. The term is often used to denote any form of government that is not democratic, but studies have demonstrated that there is a great deal of variation in authoritarian rule.

Totalitarian and fascist regimes

The most notable authoritarian regimes of the 20th century were characterized by a charismatic leader, a mass party, and a powerful secret police force. Regimes that used state institutions to brainwash and completely control their populations were categorized as totalitarian. Totalitarian regimes aimed to instill in their citizens an undying loyalty to the regime and its leader. Children were indoctrinated from a young age, learning about the heroics of their leaders and the superiority of the regime’s guiding ideology. No dissent was tolerated, and all of the opposition was either exiled, killed, or imprisoned. Political trust was low, as citizens were encouraged to spy on each other and to serve as informants for the regime.

Read More on This Topic

propaganda: Authoritarian control of propaganda

In a highly authoritarian polity, the regime tries to monopolize for itself all opportunities to engage in propaganda, and often it will...

Totalitarian regimes were also especially brutal. The Cambodian regime of Pol Pot, for example, killed up to 30 percent of the country’s population, or about 2.8 million people. Totalitarianism also aptly describes the regimes in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. North Korea under the Kim dynasty and Myanmar (Burma) under military juntas (1962–2011; 2021– ) are also examples of totalitarian rule. The German-American philosopher and political theorist Hannah Arendt argued in Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) that totalitarian styles of rule arise in capitalist societies that have experienced alienation resulting from the rigours of economic individualism.

Like totalitarian regimes, fascist regimes have been borne out of turbulent periods and crises. Fascism is conceptually difficult to define but represents a highly militaristic and hyper-nationalistic form of rule. Fascist regimes are also characterized by mass mobilization of the public and a mass party. The leader, violence, and the past are all glorified. In contrast to totalitarian systems, the level of control over society under fascism is not as pervasive, and fascist regimes have been openly hostile toward communism. But that may be due to the fact that the root causes of fascism and communism are virtually the same. Both Adolf Hitler of Germany and Benito Mussolini of Italy rose to power by exploiting a volatile political environment in which the left had been gaining traction.

Personalistic dictatorships

In spite of these notable cases in history, there are very few contemporary instances of fully totalitarian or fascist rule. Many authoritarian regimes in the 20th century did not possess the ability to completely control their societies, and interesting regional patterns emerged. In Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, there has been only one totalitarian dictatorship (in Eritrea) to date. Nevertheless, most African regimes have been highly personalistic, such as those of Mobutu Sese Seko (Joseph Mobutu) in Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo) and Idi Amin of Uganda. Personalistic dictatorships are characterized by leaders who exercise nearly absolute power. The other institutions of the state are severely weakened and exist more or less in name only. The judiciary takes direct orders from the dictator; the legislature, which is dominated by the leader’s party, acts as a rubber stamp. In many cases the dictator does not even pretend to follow constitutional procedures and rules by decree. The military in such regimes is “coup-proofed,” or deliberately weakened, so that it poses no threat to the leader’s power. All of the other organs of the state are dependent on the dictator and may even report to the dictator directly. Because there are no checks on the dictator’s power, these types of regimes are plagued by high levels of corruption and kleptocracy. In some cases, the dictator has stolen billions from the state—as Mobutu was notorious for. These types of regimes have tended to arise in countries that were very poor and had weak institutions that were easy to exploit and further debilitate.

Military juntas

During the second half of the 20th century, many Latin American countries—including Argentina, Chile, Brazil, and Uruguay—were led by military juntas. Military regimes are normally transient styles of rule, because the military prefers to step down from power and go back to the barracks rather than see their organization become politicized and vulnerable to internal splits. The military often prioritizes unity and legitimacy in the eyes of the public rather than indefinite rule. However, some military juntas have held power for long periods and have felt strongly that they were best able to lead the country. Support for military rule often came from the middle and upper classes in countries in which there were high levels of economic inequality. In these instances, the military stepped in to defend the status quo for the wealthy, which feared that more impoverished communities would contest inequality in democratic systems. The military also cited civilian incompetence and corruption as key factors for why they should take power.

Get a Britannica Premium subscription and gain access to exclusive content. Subscribe Now

Single-party authoritarianism

During the Cold War, most national governments in eastern Europe and some in Asia were led by a single political party. In many cases these regimes became totalitarian systems that exercised total control over their societies. In other cases the role of the secret police was more relaxed, and citizens did not face constant surveillance.

Single-party regimes are led by a hegemonic party with a strong grip on power. Although only one leader is officially in charge, many political elites must work together to form and execute governmental policies. Classic examples of single-party rule include the Chinese Communist Party, the Communist Party of Vietnam, and the People’s Action Party in Singapore. Studies have noted that single-party systems tend to perform much better in terms of economic growth and development than personalistic or military-junta systems. The emphasis on consensus in policy making ensures that policy output is not erratic or predicated on the whims of the dictator.

Monarchical authoritarianism

Uniquely, the Middle East remains a sea of monarchical forms of rule. Although a few of these monarchies have been overturned in revolutions (such as in Iraq, Iran, Egypt, and Libya), many monarchies remain. Monarchies were implemented in the Middle East by design. European colonial powers viewed monarchy as a stable form of rule that was best suited for nation building. Inspiration was also drawn from the traditional dynastic forms of rule that dotted the region. Monarchies are led by a ruling family and operate in ways similar to those of a single-party regime, with many individuals participating in the discussion, consultation, and decision-making processes. For this reason, the policy output of monarchies has tended to be predictable as well, making monarchies—like single-party regimes—one of the most durable forms of rule. During the Arab Spring, for example, republics in Libya, Yemen, and Egypt were overturned, while monarchies faced protests but never wavered.

The stability of authoritarian rule in the Middle East led to studies searching for explanations of how regimes that have a relatively well-off population are able to prevent the rise of a disgruntled middle class pushing for democratic rights and representation. The answer for some scholars was the regimes’ possession of certain valuable natural resources, which resulted in huge “rents.” Rents constitute revenues that go directly to a government without it having to stimulate productivity or engage in taxation. They include foreign aid and funds from the sale of natural gas, oil, or kimberlite diamonds. Many oil-rich countries use oil rents to pay off elites and the public, thereby ensuring that they remain apolitical. Instead of investing in citizens, taxing them, and representing their interests, the regime effectively co-opted them. Oil revenues, in particular, could also be used to strengthen the state’s repressive institutions to ensure that there were no challenges to the status quo.

Authoritarian decline and resurgence

But not all states have had resources at their disposal to keep their citizens happy. The economic failures of communism in eastern Europe and the overextension of the Soviet Union eventually led to their collapse. With the end of the Cold War, many other authoritarian regimes also fell apart, and some political scientists optimistically predicted that authoritarianism might become obsolete. A few decades earlier, the growth of an educated middle class, along with pressure from students and organized labour, led to an increase in the number of democracies during what the American political scientist Samuel Huntington referred to as the “Third Wave.” Additional weak autocracies collapsed when they were no longer given financial support by one of the two superpowers to help prop up their regimes. Democratic values diffused around many parts of the world, and there was a widely shared impression that democracy had triumphed.

Nevertheless, within a few decades, it was apparent that this optimism had been misguided. Following the financial crisis of 2007–08, not only was there a growing assertiveness of authoritarian regimes, but many democracies were backsliding as well. Harkening back to Arendt’s analysis, political scientists noticed that a backlash against globalization-induced economic and social dislocation was leading to a renewal of authoritarianism. Individuals who felt displaced or faced unemployment, inflation, and debt were susceptible to the rhetoric and appeal of authoritarian styles of leadership, particularly of the populist variety.

Authoritarian populism

Surprisingly, this appeal of authoritarianism took place not only in regimes that had experienced autocracy in the past but also in consolidated democracies. One of the biggest drivers of autocratization was authoritarian populist leadership. Authoritarian populism is a style of leadership that uses anti-elitist and highly divisive nativist rhetoric to garner political support. The leader then uses this support as a pretext to undermine democratic institutions. For much of the 20th century in Latin America, many national governments alternated regularly between military rule and authoritarian populism. Today, as in the past, authoritarian populist leaders rise to power through elections but then deliberately create direct linkages with the public at the expense of other national institutions. By circumventing the state and directly connecting with and distributing goods to their supporters, populist leaders cause such institutions to decay.

Populist authoritarian forms of rule tend to emerge in contexts where institutions of representation have already ossified. When parties are no longer able to make people feel as though their voices are being heard and when elites appear too removed from society, citizens may search for authoritarian alternatives that promise to directly and quickly solve all of their problems. Once the authoritarian populists have taken power, they use their democratic mandate to justify a series of restrictions on democratic forms of governance. Democratic institutions (such as referenda) are used to greatly extend the ruler’s term of office, as happened in Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, or to eliminate term limits altogether, as happened in Venezuela under Hugo Chávez. Although these types of leaders are democratically elected, once they refuse to leave office, they are bona fide autocrats.

The perverse use of democratic institutions to maintain authoritarianism has become increasingly common in post-Cold War autocracies. Almost all authoritarian regimes today hold elections, but the playing field is not level, and there is little doubt who will win. Fewer regimes now hold staged elections resulting in victories by absurd margins, such as when Tunisia’s Pres. Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali allegedly won a third term in 1999 with 99 percent of the vote. More often, the dictator allows the opposition to have some false hope in order to create a facade of democratic rule. A case in point is Venezuela, where Nicolás Maduro allowed the opposition to garner nearly one-third of the vote in the 2018 presidential election. In most authoritarian regimes, a token opposition is allowed to exist, but many opposition members are imprisoned, harassed, co-opted, or divided. Voters are also exposed to disinformation about opposition candidates to ensure an incumbent victory.

Mechanisms of authoritarian rule

Although most authoritarian regimes have drafted a constitution, they do not allow their citizens many freedoms, either on paper or in practice. The public could be free to voice their opinions on nonsensitive issues, but many topics are barred from being openly addressed. Doing so typically results in harsh repercussions for alleged violations of national security. The space in which civil society may operate is also severely curtailed. Instead of barring civil society outright, there are rules and regulations for what civil organizations can do and where they can get their funding. In many cases, civil organizations that receive foreign funding must register with the state and are monitored for any suspicious activity.

The press is another target of authoritarian regimes. Although it is not usually completely owned by the state, journalists and media outlets face limits on what they can say and how critical of the government they can be. The failure to respect such boundaries can result in imprisonment, harassment, threats, fines, or revocation of operating licenses.

Authoritarian regimes today also incorporate legislatures, political parties, and judiciaries, but those institutions do not have much power, if any. A legislature may exist, but it is filled with political lackeys that never vote against the leader. Following the election of Egyptian Pres. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, for example, the country’s legislature did little legislating. Within one year of his election, Sisi had issued more than 100 decrees. Although there are judges and courts in authoritarian regimes, they are not independent of the executive. In a practice sometimes referred to as “telephone law,” autocrats simply tell judges, sometimes literally via telephone, how to preside over politically sensitive cases. Broadly speaking, telephone law is a characteristic of authoritarian regimes that allows wealthy and powerful individuals to bypass conventional rules and regulations in order to obtain what they want. In the case of Russia, this form of injustice is rooted in the country’s culture and history and has proven difficult to erase.

The appeal of authoritarian rule

Most countries have had less experience with democracy than with autocracy. Scholars of socialization have argued that the impact of living through autocracy has had a profound impact on support for democracy after authoritarian rule. Children who grow up in autocracies learn about the benefits of authoritarian rule and are exposed to authoritarian learning styles that shun critical thinking in favour of rote memorization. Thus, growing up in an authoritarian regime would make a citizen yearn for strong leadership and be more amenable to nondemocratic forms of rule. In the early 21st century, survey research in Russia found that nearly 60 percent of all adults took a positive view of the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, while only about 20 percent held a similar opinion of the reforming president Mikhail Gorbachev—this in spite of the fact that under Stalin more than one million Russians were executed, and millions of others died as a result of forced labour, deportation, and famine (see also Ukraine: The famine of 1932–33 [Holodomor]).

Psychological approaches have also tried to make sense of why authoritarian forms of rule may be so appealing. In the 1950s a group of scholars led by the German philosopher Theodor Adorno published The Authoritarian Personality, which argues that some people exhibit personality traits that make them amenable to authoritarian rule. These characteristics include a willingness to submit to authority, a rigid cognitive style, conventional moral values, and an aggressive attitude toward out-groups and those whose behaviour is perceived to be deviant. Although the studies on which Adorno’s work was based suffered from methodological problems regarding the measurement of authoritarian personality traits, the idea that individual personality is relevant to support for authoritarianism has gained some ground among social psychologists and other researchers. Again, although it is difficult to measure, some citizens seem to display more risk aversion than others, whether the aversion arises from personality, parental socialization, educational socialization, or exposure to economic and political crises or conflicts.

“Digital authoritarianism”

Authoritarian regimes in the 21st century have tapped into the fears of citizens in new and old democracies, posing a massive threat to democratic systems. 

Since the 2010s the world has witnessed a rise in “digital authoritarianism,” or the use of information technology by an authoritarian regime to sustain or augment its power by misleading, confusing, or distracting the country’s population and by blocking access to information from sources that the regime cannot control. Moreover, Russia has used the Internet to spread disinformation designed to widen political divisions within democratic countries and to undermine public faith and trust in democratic institutions. Arguably the most effective and consequential of such efforts was Russia’s digitally mounted interference in the U.S. presidential election of 2016, which aimed at discrediting the Democratic nominee, Hilary Clinton, and broadening the appeal of her Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, who unexpectedly won the election in November.

Few countries have been able to maintain a system of digital authoritarianism as sophisticated and technologically advanced as that of China. At the turn of the 21st century, China began work on a digital infrastructure that would prevent its citizens from accessing information that could destabilize its government. Known outside China as the Chinese Firewall (and inside China as the Golden Shield), the infrastructure incorporates a centralized system of Internet traffic choke points that enable the government to prevent servers and sites across the country from accessing websites based in other countries. Platforms such as Twitter, Google, Facebook, and YouTube, as well virtual private networks, are all blocked by the firewall.

The threats of authoritarian rule to democracies are substantial. Most regimes in the world today are authoritarian, and most citizens live in nondemocratic systems. Nevertheless, though there has been a resurgence of authoritarianism in many countries, these changes are not permanent. Autocratic regimes have become savvier in many ways, but their leaders’ constant efforts to protect their power at the public’s expense often lead them to take risks that can result in their downfall.