Autocratic regime type Geddes (2004: 11-13) claims that there are three types of autocratic regimes: military, personal and single-party. Each type has specific interests that define how they respond to violent uprisings. In military regimes a group of officers decides who will rule and exercise some influence on the policy. Most professional soldiers place a higher value on the survival of the military itself than in anything else. There main interest is stability and their worst threat is civil war (Geddes, 2004: 11-13). Consequently, the most important concern for many officers deciding whether to join a coup conspiracy is their assessment of how many other officers will join (Geddes, 2004: 13). Military regimes tend to split when challenged, because military regimes are more likely to negotiate their own withdrawal and to democratize (Geddes, 2004: 6). Personal regimes are different from both military and single-party regimes, because on individual dominates the military, state apparatus and the ruling party. Personalist regimes rarely leave office voluntarily and more often end in popular uprising, revolution, invasion or assassination (Geddes, 2004:6). When the status quo of a personal regime becomes challenges a transition from one personal regime to another is more likely than a democratization process (Geddes, 2004: 23-24). In single-party regimes, access to political office and control over policy are dominated by one party, though other parties may legally exist
A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it, does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism” (Basler,
The restart of a central government demonstrates that the majority of people resented government ideas, and that these needed to be taken over by one that’s unbiased and listens to the demands of the
Many leaders throughout history have tried to gain as much power as they possibly could, not stopping until they had absolute power over an empire. This may even mean killing your own family and friends to obtain power. There has been few rulers who have been able to successfully rule as an autocrat and even fewer leaders being able to keep their entire empire on their side. If you proved to be an unsuccessful ruler, and the empire you are ruling does not like you, their is a good chance you will magically disappear leaving your family to wonder if you had really died of a “hemorrhoid”. As an autocrat, the goals the ruler will have is to expand the country 's borders, keep peace between the religions, and create new laws for the better (Document
Specifically, Levitsky and Ziblatt refer to democracy's guardrails as its norms, namely mutual tolerance and institutional forbearance. The former relates to the recognition that your political opponents have a right to rule as long as they follow constitutional rules. Institutional forbearance refers to restraint in using legal measures to block political rivals' right to govern. When political groups slowly violate these norms by deploying legal measures, Levitsky and Ziblatt propose that political actors become more willing to reject democratic institutions altogether. In the U.S., both mutual tolerance and institutional forbearance seem deeply at risk.
Governmental power is often held by a few, and this also leads to problems as citizens feel that their voices are not being heard. This inequality is not seen only between people and the government, but also different groups of citizens today (gender, race,
After World War I had ended in November 11, 1918 with the victory of the Allies, the people of many nations were in distraught. They had sought the leader they hoped would bring back their nations glory and prosperity. Some even hoped for even better than before the World War. Through all this chaos and distraught even more had been produced as few stepped up to lead the people of the nations. These few people had held all the power through a totalitarian government which centralizes all the government’s power to one person known as a dictator.
Living in a democratic country is a privilege considering, we are not controlled by one, rather the members of a state have a say. Without unity, democracy may be at risk because citizens may opt out of democratic engagement. “Isolation Bad for Democracy” written by Tom Sandborn, covers topics on how this dilemma has various solutions. During these modern times, our economy is constantly fluctuating causing people to move, following their work.
Introduction Human history is abundant in examples of individuals who have amassed such power with themselves that have allowed them to control entire populations, and often unleash tyranny and oppression upon millions of people. Throughout history there have been individuals who have held an iron grip over entire nations, concentrating totalitarian power with themselves, denying any freedom to people, crushing any form of dissent, and often unleashing mass violence, terror, and in some cases genocide. These people have shaped the future of peoples, regions and continents, starting wars and conflicts, and determining the course of millions of lives. And because of this very fact, that a single person could such a huge impact over the lives of so many people, it is very important to study the very factors that caused these individuals to make the decisions that they did, specifically, the factors and that shaped up the personality of these
After World War I and during the interwar years, countries such as Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union had to pay for their loss in war. This sent all these countries into poverty and their countries were looking for answers. In a desperate time, the people from these three nations put totalitarian leaders into power in hope for fast change. When in power these leaders became dictators and did everything they could to ensure stability and loyalty to their leadership. During the interwar years, leaders rose and maintained power through the use of force and manipulation to eliminate all opposing options.
(Cherry, 2016) Autocratic leaders normally settle on decisions in view of their thoughts, ideas and judgments and rarely acknowledge guidance or advice from followers. Autocratic leadership includes absolute, authoritarian control over a gathering. primary characteristics of autocratic leadership include, practically no contribution from members, group leaders manage all the work method, strategies and procedures, group members are infrequently trusted with choices or important assignments or tasks and lastly leaders settle on the choices and decisions. Autocratic leadership can be advantageous at times but there are additionally many occasions where this style can be problematic.
This can be compared to a direct democracy, in which the citizens directly vote on all issues of importance. In authoritarian and totalitarian political regimes, one person, entity, or party has complete control over the affairs of the state, without the input or consent of the population. In totalitarian regimes specifically, this leader attempts to control all aspects of a society, including things like the personal beliefs and morals of the population. These are sometimes accompanied by a cult of personality around the leader or leaders, as in the case of Adolf Hitler, the leader of Nazi Germany. Common forms of authoritarian or totalitarian regimes include military juntas, in which a small committee of military leaders rules the country or a single-party state, in which only one
Mosadeghard (2003) had pointed out different styles of leadership. These styles are: autocratic, bureaucratic, laissez-faire, charismatic, democratic, participative, situational, transactional, and transformational leadership. Aioanei (2006) explained that in autocratic leadership style, organization is highly centralized. Leaders are more concerned with the tasks to be performed rather than developing relations. In this type of leadership employees are less involved and most of the decisions are made by the management.
Table of contents: 1. Cover page: Page 1 2. Table of contents: Page 2 3. Introduction: Page 3 4. Body: Page 4 5.
The political party model then spread over many parts of Western Europe, including France and Germany, over the 19th century. Since then, they have become the most common political system in the world. In this essay, we will show how political parties are essential to ensuring democracy. We will also show that there are unavoidable negative consequences to the party system. One of the fundamental tenants of democracy is the