Autocratic Government

Democracy is fragile. Out of the 97 states that were independent for the last forty years, only 24 have had an uninterrupted electoral democracy. However autocracy is fragile as well. Most autocratic countries do not stay autocratic for long, or they oscillate between autocracy and democracy. The most dramatic alternative to democracy is military government, in which the current government of a state is overthrown and overtaken by the military. A minute amount of countries in the world are ran by military governments, however. Several reasons account for this fact. The most common types of autocratic systems are one party states. One party states have a government in which there is a single party allowed in the state. "Court" Politics are a characteristic of many autocracies.

Conservative Saudi Arabia, bureaucratic Soviet Union, Zaire personal dictatorship, and Pakistan's alternating government between autocracy and democracy are all rough representations of autocracies. They're quite varied politically. Ultimately, they are not fully autocratic. Most parts of the Soviet Union are moving toward democracy, the dictator of Zaire did not ultimately retain power, Pakistan continually alternates between forms of government, finally Saudi Arabia does appear to have a rather stable system. The royal family in power has been in control for several years now.

The most dramatic alternative to democracy is military government. They vary greatly in their political role. In Paraguay the regime was repressive and implemented torture. In Greece the government took harsh repressive measures as well. In Nigeria, on the other hand, there was considerable civilian support for the government. People tend to believe that military coups are of the right. However military coups can be of either the right or left, or neither one, it all depends on the officials leading the coup. Their inclination dictates whether the coup is of either, or neither side. Another erroneous belief is that military governments are bad at guiding economies. Studies have shown that military governments are neither good nor bad at guiding economies.

There is a surprisingly small amount of military governments in the world. Less than 1/10 of the world's states are military governments. Why aren't there more military governments? Partly, it is because states devote time and effort to keep military officers from politically intervening. Once the military takes power they face problems with legitimacy. There is no process of selection legitimizing the military government. They are therefore always concerned with justifying their existence. As a result they add civilians to government, set future date for return of democracy, or they rally people through wars and appeals to nationalism. Another problem is that it is unlikely that the military government leaders are skilled politically. Military governments, in addition, are shaky alliances, united primarily by their opposition to the regime. They are therefore likely to fall apart when new issues emerge.

Most autocracies are not straight military governments, but one party states. In one party states the government is based on a political party that is the only one allowed in the states. Compared with military rule the one party state offers a more stable, and responsive form of government. One party states, in addition, provide links between the government and the population, as well as they provide an arena in which varied political positions can develop into factions. Conflicts may develop within the system rather than forming outside and representing a threat. Finally, one party states provide a set of arrangements by which a transitions of leadership can be accomplished.

A characteristic of many autocracies, both military governments and one party states, are court politics. In autocracies the trend tends to be that a single person may hold almost all power in the system and politics revolve around that single person. This is called court politics after the royal courts of the great European monarchs. This is a quite common characteristic but it is not true of all autocracies, it is quite frequent though. Court politics is usually marked by less emphasis on the rule of the law and more on the arbitrary whim of the ruler. Heavy competition by other figure for access to the leader, unusual importance of nonpolitical figures that have access to the leader, flattery and attempts to shield the leader from unpleasant reality.

Autocratic systems are quite diverse and uncommonly stable. Saudi Arabia, the Soviet Union, Zaire, and Pakistan are epitomes of this statement. Several autocratic states have set up institutions of politics, especially through single parties, that allow for politics to be conducted over the long haul, straight military governments, however, have not. One party states are an alternative to military government that provide many things that military governments lack. Military governments face problems with legitimacy, their leaders are unlikely skilled politically, and their very nature makes them likely to fall apart. One party states, on the other hand, offer an overall more stable and responsive form of government. Military governments, and one party states are similar in that there frequently is a single person holding nearly all the power, and politics revolves around that person. This is not true of all autocracies, however it is quite frequent that that is indeed the case.


Hitler: Military Government