The Resilience of Autocracy

The entire focus of this week was a continuation of the last week in regards to democracy and democratization. This week specifically, we focused on authoritarianism and the ability of an autocratic style government to succeed.

Is an autocratic government really bad? Is democracy the ideal way to govern a country? Throughout history and in recent times, we are constantly being inundated with the idea that authoritarianism is bad and that all citizens really want to live in a democratic state. Despite this supposed inherent desire for democracy, why is it that authoritarian regimes are still able to exist for years upon years?

Personally, I am not of the opinion that democracy is the best and only way to function. As much as people like to rattle off all of the wonderful things that comes from democracy such as the ability to vote, more freedoms, economic development and an overall better life, these qualities are not simply limited to democracies. There is nothing that states that these appealing conditions cannot be found in non-democratic states nor is there any guarantees that a democratic state will have all of these things, besides voting-which is not always done well as evident by many developing 'democracies'. It is very possible to have all of these things in an autocracy, especially in those that are monarchical. Although citizens might not be voting for their head of state, in many autocratic states, citizens do vote for local officials and parliament members. During the class discussion, it was very evident that many of reasons why authoritarianism is classified as bad, also appear in democracy. For instance, corruption, nepotism and censorship-the only difference between the two styles of governance is how visible these traits are. There is not much of a difference between a king placing is close allies in key cabinet positions as a US president placing his close allies as cabinet secretary. There is no difference in an autocratic government attempting to ensure that they stay in power to a political party in a democracy attempting to ensure that the hold the wide majority of seats in parliament or Congress. 

In regards to the ability of authoritarian style governments to succeed, we were required to read "The Durability of Revolutionary Regimes" by Way and Levitsky. In this paper, both authors explained some of the reasons why revolutionary-derived autocratic regimes are able to stay in power for so long. The most important reason lies in the manner in which the revolution evolved. Revolutions that emerge out of mass mobilization and popular dissent instead of a coup orchestrated by a small group of individuals, have a greater chance of longevity in regards to power and control of the state. Armed struggle also plays a role in the durability of revolutionary regimes because those controlling the revolution are able to eliminate opponents and destroy traditional power centers. The fact that the revolution is widespread also provides the ability for these leaders to "justify" the elimination of opponents, regardless of how crude the process is, because it's a necessary maneuver for the success of the 'great cause'. By ridding themselves of the opposition and establishing their regime as THE power center, they are ensuring that the chances of them being challenged and overthrown are very minuscule. Along with demolishing independent power centers, a strong ruling party and coercive actions also plays a role in the durability of such regimes. 

The discussion on the durability of autocratic regimes then shifted to Arab monarchies and why, in light of the Arab Spring, all of the monarchies experienced either very little to no unrest/protests at all. The question that was posed to the class and addressed in the paper "Resilient Royals: How Arab Monarchies Hang On" by Yom and Gause was 'what makes the monarchies in the Gulf so special that they were able to withstand the the effects of the so called Arab Spring?'.

Muscat, Oman

                               
With the exception of Bahrain, whose protests were quelled by Saudi assistance, many of the Arab monarchies were able to avoid or settle all disturbances by providing the citizens with what they wanted-primarily jobs and money. The resilience of the Arab monarchies correlates to my earlier point in regards to democracy not being the best or only way to operate a state. The Sultanate of Oman, for example is a monarchy and repeatedly classified as 'Not Free' by Freedom House, yet citizens enjoy a very decent life. Since Sultan Qaboos bin Said took power in 1970, the nation has developed rapidly. All citizens are provided with health care, free education, welfare assistance, tax free living as well as other benefits. Though the Sultan is the head of state, citizens still vote for local and parliament officials. While Oman did experience minor protests, they were not geared towards overthrowing the government or aiming for a revolution. The requests made during the protest consisted of raising the minimum wage for nationals, providing more jobs for nationals and decreasing the reliance on expats in the workforce. Once these demands were promised and subsequently met, the protests ended. The ability to quickly provide citizens what they desire is a major attribute to why many non-democratic states are able to function with relative peace.

Overall, based on what we've learned over the last few weeks as well as my previous knowledge, I do not think that democracy is best for all nor do I think that autocracy is the best for all. The culture and traditions of the local people will play a role in how each style of government progresses in a state. The quality of life and economic development of a country will also affect how willing citizens are to accepting one style of governance over another. 

Levitsky, S. and Way, L. (2013)’ The Durability of Revolutionary Regimes’, Journal of Democracy, 24:3, pp. 5-17

Yom, S.L. and Gause III, F.G. (2012)’Resilient Royals: How Arab Monarchies Hang on’, Journal of Democracy, 23:4, pp. 74-88