Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by strong central power and limited political freedoms. Individual freedoms are subordinate to the state and there is no constitutional accountability under an authoritarian regime. Juan Linz's influential 1964 description of authoritarianism characterized authoritarian political systems by four qualities:
- Limited political pluralism, that is such regimes place constraints on political institutions and groups like legislatures, political parties and interest groups;
- A basis for legitimacy based on emotion, especially the identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems" such as underdevelopment or insurgency;
- Minimal social mobilization most often caused by constraints on the public such as suppression of political opponents and anti-regime activity;
- Informally defined executive power with often vague and shifting powers.
Authoritarian government and states
Linz distinguished new forms of authoritarianism from personalistic dictatorships and totalitarian states, taking Francoist Spain as an example. Unlike personalistic dictatorships, new forms of authoritarianism have institutionalized representation of a variety of actors (in Spain's case, including the military, the Catholic Church, Falange, monarchists, technocrats and others). Unlike totalitarian states, the regime relies on passive mass acceptance rather than popular support.
Several subtypes of authoritarian regimes have been identified by Linz and others. Linz identified the two most basic subtypes as traditional authoritarian regimes and bureaucratic-military authoritarian regimes:
- Traditional authoritarian regimes are those "in which the ruling authority (generally a single person)" is maintained in power "through a combination of appeals to traditional legitimacy, patron-client ties and repression, which is carried out by an apparatus bound to the ruling authority through personal loyalties". An example is Ethiopia under Haile Selassie I.
- Bureaucratic-military authoritarian regimes are those "governed by a coalition of military officers and technocrats who act pragmatically (rather than ideologically) within the limits of their bureaucratic mentality. Mark J. Gasiorowski suggests that it is best to distinguish "simple military authoritarian regimes" from "bureaucratic authoritarian regimes" in which "a powerful group of technocrats uses the state apparatus to try to rationalize and develop the economy" such as South Korea under Park Chung-hee.
- Corporatist authoritarian regimes "are those in which corporatism institutions are used extensively by the state to coopt and demobilize powerful interest groups". This type has been studied most extensively in Latin America.
- Racial and ethnic "democracies" are those in which "certain racial or ethnic groups enjoy full democratic rights while others are largely or entirely denied those rights", such as in South Africa under apartheid.
- Post-totalitarian authoritarian regimes are those in which totalitarian institutions (such as the party, secret police and state-controlled mass media) remain, but where "ideological orthodoxy has declined in favor of routinization, repression has declined, the state's top leadership is less personalized and more secure, and the level of mass mobilization has declined substantially". Examples include the Russian Federation and Soviet Eastern bloc states in the mid-1980s.
Authoritarian regimes are also sometimes subcategorized by whether they are personalistic or populist. Personalistic authoritarian regimes are characterized by arbitrary rule and authority exercised "mainly through patronage networks and coercion rather than through institutions and formal rules". Personalistic authoritarian regimes have been seen in post-colonial Africa. By contrast, populist authoritarian regimes "are mobilizational regimes in which a strong, charismatic, manipulative leader rules through a coalition involving key lower-class groups". Examples include Argentina under Perón, Egypt under Nasser and Venezuela under Chávez and Maduro.
Authoritarianism is characterized by highly concentrated and centralized power maintained by political repression and the exclusion of potential challengers. It uses political parties and mass organizations to mobilize people around the goals of the regime. Adam Przeworski has theorized that "authoritarian equilibrium rests mainly on lies, fear and economic prosperity".
Authoritarianism also tends to embrace the informal and unregulated exercise of political power, a leadership that is "self-appointed and even if elected cannot be displaced by citizens' free choice among competitors", the arbitrary deprivation of civil liberties and little tolerance for meaningful opposition.
A range of social controls also attempt to stifle civil society, while political stability is maintained by control over and support of the armed forces, a bureaucracy staffed by the regime and creation of allegiance through various means of socialization and indoctrination.
Authoritarian political systems may be weakened through "inadequate performance to demands of the people". Vestal writes that the tendency to respond to challenges to authoritarianism through tighter control instead of adaptation is a significant weakness and that this overly rigid approach fails to "adapt to changes or to accommodate growing demands on the part of the populace or even groups within the system". Because the legitimacy of the state is dependent on performance, authoritarian states that fail to adapt may collapse.
Authoritarianism is marked by "indefinite political tenure" of the ruler or ruling party (often in a one-party state) or other authority. The transition from an authoritarian system to a more democratic form of government is referred to as democratization.
John Duckitt suggests a link between authoritarianism and collectivism, asserting that both stand in opposition to individualism. Duckitt writes that both authoritarianism and collectivism submerge individual rights and goals to group goals, expectations and conformities.
Authoritarianism and totalitarianism
Totalitarianism is an extreme version of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism primarily differs from totalitarianism in that social and economic institutions exist that are not under governmental control. Building on the work of Yale political scientist Juan Linz, Paul C. Sondrol of the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs has examined the characteristics of authoritarian and totalitarian dictators and organized them in a chart:
|Role conception||Leader as function||Leader as individual|
|Ends of power||Private||Public|
(1) Unlike their bland and generally unpopular authoritarian brethren, totalitarian dictators develop a charismatic "mystique" and a mass-based, pseudo-democratic interdependence with their followers via the conscious manipulation of a prophetic image.
(2) Concomitant role conceptions differentiate totalitarians from authoritarians. Authoritarians view themselves as individual beings largely content to control and often maintain the status quo. Totalitarian self-conceptions are largely teleological. The tyrant is less a person than an indispensable function to guide and reshape the universe.
(3) Consequently, the utilisation of power for personal aggrandizement is more evident among authoritarians than totalitarians. Lacking the binding appeal of ideology, authoritarians support their rule by a mixture of instilling fear and granting rewards to loyal collaborators, engendering a kleptocracy.
Compared to totalitarianism, "the authoritarian state still maintains a certain distinction between state and society. It is only concerned with political power and as long as that is not contested it gives society a certain degree of liberty. Totalitarianism, on the other hand, invades private life and asphyxiates it". Another distinction is that "authoritarianism is not animated by utopian ideals in the way totalitarianism is. It does not attempt to change the world and human nature". Carl Joachim Friedrich writes that "a totalist ideology, a party reinforced by a secret police, and monopoly control of ... industrial mass society" are the three features of totalitarian regimes that distinguish them from other autocracies.
Authoritarianism and democracy
Authoritarianism and democracy are not fundamentally opposed to one another, as it is possible for democracies to possess authoritarian elements. An illiberal democracy (or procedural democracy) is distinguished from liberal democracy (or substantive democracy) in that illiberal democracies lack features such as the rule of law, protections for minority groups and an independent judiciary.
A further distinction that liberal democracies have rarely made war with one another; research has extended the theory and finds that more democratic countries tend to have few wars (sometimes called militarized interstate disputes) causing fewer battle deaths with one another and that democracies have far fewer civil wars.
Some commentators, such as Seymour Martin Lipset, believed that low-income authoritarian regimes have certain technocratic "efficiency-enhancing advantages" over low-income democracies, helping authoritarian regimes generate development. Morton H. Halperin, Joseph T. Siegle and Michael M. Weinstein (2005) counter this belief, arguing that the evidence has showed that there is no "authoritarian advantage" and that there is a "democratic advantage" instead. Halperin et al. argue that democracies "realize superior development performance" over authoritarianism. They point out that poor democracies are more likely to have steadier economic growth and less likely to experience economic and humanitarian catastrophes than authoritarian regimes; that civil liberties act as a curb on corruption and misuse of resources; and that democracies are more adaptable. Halperin point out that the vast majority of refugee crises and financial catastrophes occur in authoritarian regimes.
Studies suggest that several health indicators (life expectancy and infant and maternal mortality) have a stronger and more significant association with democracy than they have with GDP per capita, size of the public sector or income inequality. Prominent economist Amartya Sen has theorized that no functioning liberal democracy has ever suffered a large-scale famine.
Research shows that the democratic nations have much less democide or murder by government. Those were also moderately developed nations before applying liberal democratic policies. Research by the World Bank suggests that political institutions are extremely important in determining the prevalence of corruption and that parliamentary systems, political stability and freedom of the press are all associated with lower corruption. One study has concluded that terrorism is most common in nations with intermediate political freedom. The nations with the least amount of terrorism are the most and least democratic nations.
The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples of states which are currently (or frequently) characterized as authoritarian:
- Algeria under Abdelaziz Bouteflika (1999–)
- Angola under the People's Movement for the Liberation of Angola Party (1975–)
- Azerbaijan under Ilham Aliyev (2003–)
- Bahrain under the House of Khalifa (1746–)
- Belarus under Alexander Lukashenko (1994–) on account of Lukashenko's self-described authoritarian style of government
- Burundi under Pierre Nkurunziza (2005–)
- Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge and Hun Sen (1985–)
- Cameroon under Paul Biya (1982–)
- Chad under Idriss Deby (1990–)
- People's Republic of China under the Communist Party of China (1949–) “Some scholars have deemed the Chinese system a 'fragmented authoritarianism' (Lieberthal), a 'negotiated state' or a 'consultative authoritarian regime'"
- Democratic Republic of the Congo under Mobutu Sese Seko, Laurent-Désiré and Joseph Kabila (1965–)
- Republic of Congo under Denis Sassou Nguesso (1997–)
- Cuba under Fidel and Raúl Castro (1959–)
- Egypt under Hosni Mubarak (1981–2011) and Abdel Fattah el-Sisi (2014–)
- Equatorial Guinea under Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo (1979–)
- Eritrea under Isaias Afwerki (1993–)
- Ethiopia under Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (1991–)
- Gabon under Omar Bongo and Ali Bongo Ondimba (1967–)
- Hungary under Viktor Orbán (2010–)
- Iran under Ruhollah Khomeini and Ali Khamenei (1981–) Linz wrote in 2000 that "it is difficult to fit the Iranian regime into the existing typology, as it combines the ideological bent of totalitarianism with the limited pluralism of authoritarianism and holds regular elections in which candidates advocating differing policies and incumbents are often defeated"
- Kazakhstan under Nursultan Nazarbayev
- Laos under the Lao People's Revolutionary Party (1975–)
- North Korea under the rule of the Kim dynasty and the Korean Workers' Party (1947–)
- Oman under Sultan Qaboos bin Said al Said
- Qatar under the House of Thani.
- Russian Federation under Vladimir Putin (1999–) (see Putinism for more) has strong characteristics of authoritarianism, described by some as "really a mixture of authoritarianism and managed democracy"
- Rwanda under Paul Kagame (2000–)
- Singapore is considered authoritarian, especially under the Lee Kuan Yew until 2015.
- Saudi Arabia under the House of Saud (1744–)
- South Sudan under Salva Kiir Mayardit (2011–)
- Sudan under Omar al-Bashir (1989–)
- Syria under Hafez and Bashar al-Assad (1970–)
- Tajikistan under Emomali Rahmon (1994–)
- Thailand under General Prayut Chan-o-cha who overthrew the democratically elected government of Yingluck Shinawatra in a military coup and installed a military junta to oversee the governance of Thailand (2014–)
- Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdogan (2003–) described as a “competitive authoritarian regime”
- Turkmenistan under Saparmurat Nyazow (1991–2006) and Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow (2006–)
- United Arab Emirates under the six royal families of the United Arab Emirates (10 February 1972–)
- Uganda since independence (1964–)
- Uzbekistan under Islam Karimov (1989–2016) and Shavkat Mirziyoyev(2016-)
- Venezuela under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro (1999–)
- Vietnam under the Vietnamese Communist Party (1976–)
Systemic weakness and resilience
Andrew J. Nathan notes that "regime theory holds that authoritarian systems are inherently fragile because of weak legitimacy, overreliance on coercion, overcentralization of decision making, and the predominance of personal power over institutional norms....Few authoritarian regimes—be they communist, fascist, corporatist, or personalist—have managed to conduct orderly, peaceful, timely, and stable successions". One exception to this general trend is the endurance of the authoritarian rule of the Chinese Communist Party, which has been unusually resilient among authoritarian regimes. Nathan posits that this can be attributed to four factors: (1) "the increasingly norm-bound nature of its succession politics"; (2) "the increase in meritocratic as opposed to factional considerations in the promotion of political elites"; (3) "the differentiation and functional specialization of institutions within the regime"; and (4) "the establishment of institutions for political participation and appeal that strengthen the CCP's legitimacy among the public at large".
After World War II there was a strong sense of anti-authoritarianism based on anti-fascism in Europe. This was attributed to the active resistance from occupation and to fears arising from the development of superpowers. Anti-authoritarianism also became associated with countercultural and bohemian movements such as the Beat Generation in the 1950s, the hippies in the 1960s and punks in the 1970s.
According to a study by Brandt and Henry, there is a direct correlation between the rates of gender inequality and the levels of authoritarian ideas in the male and female populations. It was found that in countries with less gender equality where individualism was encouraged and men occupied the dominant societal roles, women were more likely to support traits such as obedience which would allow them to survive in an authoritarian environment and less likely to encourage ideas such as independence and imagination. In countries with higher levels of gender equality, men held less authoritarian views. It is theorized that this occurs due to the stigma attached to individuals who question the cultural norms set by the dominant individuals and establishments in an authoritarian society as a way to prevent the psychological stress caused by the active ostracizing of the stigmatized individuals.
- Sekiguchi, Masashi. Government and Politics - Volume I. EOLSS Publications. p. 92. ISBN 9781905839698. Retrieved 26 December 2016.
- Richard Shorten, Modernism and Totalitarianism: Rethinking the Intellectual Sources of Nazism and Stalinism, 1945 to the Present (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), p. 256 (note 67).
- Gretchen Casper, Fragile Democracies: The Legacies of Authoritarian Rule, pp. 40–50 (citing Linz 1964).
- Todd Landman, Studying Human Rights (Routledge, 2003), p. 71 (citing Linz 1964 and others).
- Mark J. Gasiorowski, The Political Regimes Project, in On Measuring Democracy: Its Consequences and Concomitants (ed. Alex Inketes), 2006, p. 110–11.
- Juan de Onis, "After Chavez, Authoritarianism Still Threatens Latin America", World Affairs (May 15, 2013): "the followers of the late President Hugo Chávez continue to apply the playbook of authoritarian populism throughout Latin America in their pursuit of more power...one of the Mercosur partners are challenging the basic political practices of authoritarian populism implanted in Venezuela."
- Kurt Weyland, "Latin America's Authoritarian Drift: The Threat from the Populist Left", Journal of Democracy, Vol. 23, Issue 3 (July 2013), pp. 18–32.
- Theodore M. Vesta, Ethiopia: A Post-Cold War African State. Greenwood, 1999, p. 17.
- Przeworski, Adam (1991-07-26). Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521423359.
- Hsu, Jennifer Y. J.; Hsu, Carolyn L.; Hasmath, Reza (2016). "NGO Strategies in an Authoritarian Context, and their Implications for Citizenship: The Case of the People's Republic of China". American Sociological Association Annual Meeting (Seattle), August 20–23.: 1. SSRN .
- Duckitt, J. (1989). "Authoritarianism and Group Identification: A New View of an Old Construct". Political Psychology. 10 (1): 63–84. doi:10.2307/3791588. JSTOR 3791588. (Registration required (. ))
- Kemmelmeier, M.; Burnstein, E.; Krumov, K.; Genkova, P.; Kanagawa, C.; Hirshberg, M. S.; Erb, H. P.; Wieczorkowska, G.; Noels, K. A. (2003). "Individualism, Collectivism, and Authoritarianism in Seven Societies". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 34 (3): 304. doi:10.1177/0022022103034003005.
- Sondrol, P. C. (2009). "Totalitarian and Authoritarian Dictators: A Comparison of Fidel Castro and Alfredo Stroessner". Journal of Latin American Studies. 23 (3): 599. doi:10.1017/S0022216X00015868.
- Radu Cinpoes, Nationalism and Identity in Romania: A History of Extreme Politics from the Birth of the State to EU Accession, p. 70.
- Thomas H. Henriksen, American Power after the Berlin Wall (Palgrave MacMillian: 2007), p. 199: "experts emphasize that elections alone, without the full democratic panoply of an independent judiciary, free press, and viable political parties, constitute, in reality, illiberal democracies, which still menace their neighbors and destabilize their regions."
- David P. Forsythe, Human Rights in International Relations (Cambridge University Press, 2012), p. 231: "Illiberal democracies may have reasonably free and fair national elections based on broad suffrage, but they do not counteract the tyranny of the majority with effective protections for ethnic and religious minorities or various types of dissenters."
- Rod Hague & Martin Harrop, Political Science: A Comparative Introduction (7th ed.: Palgrave MacMillian: 2007), p. 259: "The gradual implementation of the rule of law and due process is an accomplishment of liberal politics, provide a basis for distinguishing liberal from illiberal democracies, and both from authoritarian regimes."
- Vladimir Popov, "Circumstances versus Policy Choices: Why Has the Economic Performance of the Soviet Successor States Been So Poor" in After the Collapse of Communism: Comparative Lessons of Transition (eds. Michael McFaul & Kathryn Stoner-Weiss: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 20: "The least efficient institutions are in illiberal democracies combining poor rule of law with democracy ... Less democratic regimes with weak rule of law ... appear to do better than illiberal democracies in maintaining institutional capacity."
- Hegre, Håvard; Tanja Ellington; Scott Gates & Nils Petter Gleditsch (2001). "Towards A Democratic Civil Peace? Opportunity, Grievance and Civil War 1816-1992". American Political Science Review. 95: 33–48. Archived from the original on 2004-04-06.
- Ray, James Lee (2013). Colin Elman; Miriam Fendius Elman, eds. A Lakatosian View of the Democratic Peace Research Program From Progress in International Relations Theory (PDF). MIT Press. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-06-25.
- Morton H. Halperin, Joseph T. Siegle, & Michael M. Weinstein, The Democracy Advantage: How Democracies Promote Prosperity and Peace (Council on Foreign Relations/Psychology Press, 2005).
- Franco, Á.; Álvarez-Dardet, C.; Ruiz, M. T. (2004). "Effect of democracy on health: ecological study". BMJ. 329 (7480): 1421–23. doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7480.1421. PMC . PMID 15604165.
- Sen, A. K. (1999). "Democracy as a Universal Value". Journal of Democracy. 10 (3): 3–17. doi:10.1353/jod.1999.0055.
- R. J. Rummel (1997). Power kills: democracy as a method of nonviolence. New Brunswick, New Jersey, United States U.S.A: Transaction Publishers. ISBN 1-56000-297-2.
- Daniel Lederman, Norman Loayza, & Rodrigo Res Soares, "Accountability and Corruption: Political Institutions Matter", World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2708 (November 2001).
- Harvard News Office (2004-11-04). "Harvard Gazette: Freedom squelches terrorist violence". News.harvard.edu. Archived from the original on 2015-09-19. Retrieved 2012-02-02.
- "Freedom in the World Algeria Report". Retrieved 19 April 2018.
- "Freedom in the World Angola Report". Retrieved 19 April 2018.
- Vincent, Rebecca (19 May 2013). "When the music dies: Azerbaijan one year after Eurovision". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 10 June 2013.
Over the past several years, Azerbaijan has become increasingly authoritarian, as the authorities have used tactics such as harassment, intimidation, blackmail, attack and imprisonment to silence the regime’s critics, whether journalists, bloggers, human rights defenders, political activists or ordinary people taking to the streets in protest.
- Nebil Husayn, Authoritarianism in Bahrain: Motives, Methods and Challenges, AMSS 41st Annual Conference (September 29, 2012); Parliamentary Elections and Authoritarian Rule in Bahrain (January 13, 2011), Stanford University
- Rausing, Sigrid (7 October 2012). "Belarus: inside Europe's last dictatorship". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 7 August 2014.
- "Belarus's Lukashenko: "Better a dictator than gay"". Berlin. Reuters. 4 March 2012.
...German Foreign Minister's branding him 'Europe's last dictator'
- "Profile: Alexander Lukashenko". BBC News. BBC. 9 January 2007. Retrieved 7 August 2014.
'..an authoritarian ruling style is characteristic of me [Lukashenko]'
- "Essential Background – Belarus". Human Rights Watch. 2005. Retrieved 26 March 2006.
- "Human rights by country – Belarus". Amnesty International Report 2007. Amnesty International. 2007. Archived from the original on 12 December 2007. Retrieved 22 December 2007.
- "Freedom in the World Burundi Report". Retrieved 19 April 2018.
- Elisabeth Bumiller (November 16, 2012). "In Cambodia, Panetta Reaffirms Ties With Authoritarian Government". New York Times.
- Freedom House (2016). Freedom in the World 2016: Anxious Dictators, Wavering Democracies: Global Freedom Under Pressure (PDF).
- ""Amnesty International Report 2009: State of the World's Human Rights"". Amnesty International. 2009. Archived from the original on 2011-10-08.
- "Freedom in the World Chad Report". Retrieved 19 April 2018.
- Ming Xia, China Rises Companion: Political Governance, New York Times. See also Cheng Li, The End of the CCP’s Resilient Authoritarianism? A Tripartite Assessment of Shifting Power in China (September 2012), The China Quarterly, Vol. 211; Perry Link and Joshua Kurlantzick, China's Modern Authoritarianism (May 25, 2009), Wall Street Journal; Ariana Eunjung Cha, China, Cuba, Other Authoritarian Regimes Censor News From Iran (June 27, 2009), Washington Post.
- "Freedom in the World Democratic Republic of Congo Report". Retrieved 19 April 2018.
- "Freedom in the World Republic of Congo Report". Retrieved 19 April 2018.
- Ariana Eunjung Cha, China, Cuba, Other Authoritarian Regimes Censor News From Iran (June 27, 2009), Washington Post; Shanthi Kalathil and Taylor Boas, Internet and State Control in Authoritarian Regimes: China, Cuba and the Counterrevolution (July 16, 2001), Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
- Amr Adly, The Economics of Egypt’s Rising Authoritarian Order, Carnegie Middle East Center, June 18, 2014; Nathan J. Brown & Katie Bentivoglio, Egypt's Resurgent Authoritarianism: It's a Way of Life, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, October 9, 2014; Roula Khalaf, Sisi’s Egypt: The march of the security state, Financial Times (December 19, 2016); Peter Hessler, Egypt's Failed Revolution, New Yorker, January 2, 2017.
- "Freedom in the World Equatorial Guinea Report". Retrieved 19 April 2018.
- "Freedom in the World Eritea Report". Retrieved 19 April 2018.
- "Freedom in the World Ethiopia Report". Retrieved 19 April 2018.
- "Freedom in the World Gabon Report". Retrieved 19 April 2018.
- Mehrdad Kia, [https://books.google.com/books? id=BaE3AAAAQBAJ&pg=PA75#v=onepage&q&f=false The Making of Modern Authoritarianism in Contemporary Iran], in Modern Middle East Authoritarianism: Roots, Ramifications, and Crisis (Routledge: 2013; eds. Noureddine Jebnoun, Mehrdad Kia & Mimi Kirk), pp. 75–76.
- Juan José Linz, Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes (Lynne Rienner, 2000), p. 36.
- Beckert, Jen. "Communitarianism." International Encyclopedia of Economic Sociology. London: Routledge, 2006. 81.
- Daniel Byman, Pyongyang’s Survival Strategy: Tools of Authoritarian Control in North Korea, International Security, Vol. 35, issue 1, pp. 44–74 (Summer 2010); Chico Harlan, In authoritarian North Korea, hints of reform, Washington Post, September 3, 2012.
- "Dictators Continue to Score in International Sporting Events". Freedom House.
- Nikolay Petrov and Michael McFaul, The Essence of Putin's Managed Democracy (October 18, 2005), Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Tom Parfitt, Billionaire tycoon Mikhail Prokhorov who is running in the 4 March election says it is time for evolution not revolution (January 11, 2012), Guardian; Richard Denton, Russia's 'managed democracy' (May 11, 2006), BBC News.
- "Nations in Transit 2014 – Russia". Freedom House.
- "The Myth of the Authoritarian Model – How Putin's Crackdown Holds Russia Back" (PDF). The Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford.
- "Freedom in the World Rwanda Report". Retrieved 19 April 2018.
- "Lee Kuan Yew leaves a legacy of authoritarian pragmatism". Retrieved 5 May 2017.
- "January 5, 2017 Fear, smear and the paradox of authoritarian politics in Singapore". Retrieved 5 May 2017.
- Toby Craig Jones, Desert Kingdom: How Oil and Water Forged Modern Saudi Arabia (2011), Harvard University Press, pp. 5, 14–15; Kira D. Baiasu, Sustaining Authoritarian Rule Archived January 2, 2013, at the Wayback Machine., Fall 2009, Volume 10, Issue 1 (September 30, 2009), Northwestern Journal of International Affairs.
- "Freedom in the World South Sudan Report". Retrieved 19 April 2018.
- Heydemann, Steven; Leenders, Reinoud (2013). Middle East Authoritarianisms: Governance, Contestation, and Regime Resilience in Syria and Iran. Stanford University Press. p. 13. ISBN 978-0804793339.
- "Freedom in the World Tajikistan Report". Retrieved 19 April 2018.
- Jakubowski, Andrzej (2016). Cultural Rights as Collective Rights: An International Law Perspective. Brill – Nijhoff. p. 196. ISBN 978-9004312012.
- Berk Esena & Sebnem Gumuscub, Rising competitive authoritarianism in Turkey, Third World Quarterly (February 19, 2016). doi:10.1080/01436597.2015.1135732; Ramazan Kılınç, Turkey: from conservative democracy to popular authoritarianism, openDemocracy (December 5, 2015).
- "Turkmenistan". hrw.org. Retrieved 4 September 2016.
- "The dark side of the United Arab Emirates". newint.org. 7 September 2015. Retrieved 22 October 2017.
- "United Arab Emirates profile". 29 August 2017. Retrieved 22 October 2017 – via www.bbc.com.
- "Freedom in the World Uganda Report". Retrieved 19 April 2018.
- Neil J. Melvin, Uzbekistan: Transition to Authoritarianism on the Silk Road (Harwood Academic, 2000), pp. 28–30.
- Shahram Akbarzadeh, "Post-Soviet Central Asia: The Limits of Islam" in Constitutionalism in Islamic Countries: Between Upheaval and Continuity (Oxford University Press, 2012: eds. Rainer Grote & Tilmann J. Röder), p. 428.
- Human Rights Watch, Venezuela: Chávez’s Authoritarian Legacy: Dramatic Concentration of Power and Open Disregard for Basic Human Rights, March 5, 2013; Kurt Weyland, Latin America's Authoritarian Drift: The Threat from the Populist Left, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 24, No. 3 (July 2013), pp. 18–32.
- Thomas Fuller, In Hard Times, Open Dissent and Repression Rise in Vietnam (April 23, 2013), New York Times
- Todd L. Edwards, Argentina: A Global Studies Handbook (2008), pp. 45–46; Steven E. Sanderson, The Politics of Trade in Latin American Development (1992), Stanford University Press, p. 133; William C. Smith, Reflections on the Political Economy of Authoritarian Rule and Capitalist Reorganization in Contemporary Argentina, in Generals in Retreat: The Crisis of Military Rule in Latin America (1985), eds. Philip J. O'Brien & Paul A. Cammack, Manchester University Press.
- Guillermo A. O'Donnell, Bureaucratic Authoritarianism: Argentina, 1966–1973, in Comparative Perspective (University of California Press, 1988); James M. Malloy, Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America: The Modal Pattern, in Democracy in Latin America: Patterns and Cycles (1996; ed. Roderic A. Camp), p. 122; Howard J. Wiards, Corporatism and Comparative Politics: The Other Great "ism" (1997), pp. 113–14.
- James M. Malloy, Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America: The Modal Pattern, in Democracy in Latin America: Patterns and Cycles (ed. Roderic A. Camp), p. 122; Thomas E. Skidmore, The Political Economy of Policy-making in Authoritarian Brazil, 1967–70, in Generals in Retreat: The Crisis of Military Rule in Latin America (1985), eds. Philip J. O'Brien & Paul A. Cammack, Manchester University Press.
- Thomas Carothers, Q&A: Is Burma Democratizing? (April 2, 2012), Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; President Discusses Burma/Myanmar in Transition at World Affairs Council Sacramento (April 3, 2013), Asia Foundation; Louise Arbour, In Myanmar, Sanctions Have Had Their Day (March 5, 2012), New York Times.
- Steven E. Sanderson, The Politics of Trade in Latin American Development (1992), Stanford University Press, p. 133; Carlos Huneeus, Political Mass Mobilization Against Authoritarian Rule: Pinochet's Chile, 1983–88, in Civil Resistance and Power Politics:The Experience of Non-violent Action from Gandhi to the Present (2009), Oxford University Press (eds. Adam Roberts & Timothy Garton Ash).
- Maye Kassem, Egyptian Politics: The Dynamics of Authoritarian Rule (2004); Andrea M. Perkins, Mubarak's Machine: The Durability of the Authoritarian Regime in Egypt (M.A. thesis, April 8, 2010, University of South Florida).
- Gaddafi's 41-Year-Long Rule, Washington Post; Martin Asser, The Muammar Gaddafi Story (October 21, 2011), BBC News; Alistair Dawber, One Libyan in three wants return to authoritarian rule (February 16, 2012), Independent.
- Misiunas, Romuald J. (1970). "Fascist Tendencies in Lithuania". Slavonic and East European Review. 48 (110): 88–109. JSTOR 4206165.
- Matthew Brunwasser, Concerns Grow About Authoritarianism in Macedonia, The New York Times, October 13, 2011.
- Andrew MacDowall, Fears for Macedonia's fragile democracy amid 'coup' and wiretap claims, The Guardian, February 27, 2015.
- Pinto, António Costa (2006). "Authoritarian legacies, transitional justice and state crisis in Portugal's democratization". Democratization. 13 (2): 173–204. doi:10.1080/13510340500523895. Working paper.
- Richard Gunther, The Spanish Model Revisited, in The Politics and Memory of Democratic Transition: The Spanish Model, (eds. Diego Muro & Gregorio Alonso), Taylor & Francis 2010, p. 19.
- Tracy Kuperus, Building a Pluralist Democracy: An Examination of Religious Associations in South Africa and Zimbabwe, in Race and Reconciliation in South Africa: A Multicultural Dialogue in Comparative Perspective (eds. William E. Van Vugt & G. Daan Cloete), Lexington Books, 2000.
- The South Africa Reader: History, Culture, Politics (eds. Clifton Crais & Thomas V. McClendon; Duke University Press, 2014), p. 279.
- The Other R.O.K.: Memories of Authoritarianism in Democratic South Korea (October 11, 2011), Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; Sangmook Lee, Democratic Transition and the Consolidation of Democracy in South Korea Archived December 24, 2012, at the Wayback Machine., July 2007, Taiwan Journal of Democracy, Volume 3, No. 1, pp. 99–125.
- Hyug Baeg Im, The Rise of Bureaucratic Authoritarianism in South Korea, World Politics Vol. 39, Issue 2 (January 1987), pp. 231–57
- Leng, Shao-chuan; Lin, Cheng-yi (1993). "Political Change on Taiwan: Transition to Democracy?". The China Quarterly. Cambridge University Press (136): 805–39. ISSN 0305-7410. JSTOR 655592. (Registration required (. )); Shirley A. Kan, Congressional Research Service, Democratic Reforms in Taiwan: Issues for Congress (May 26, 2010); Taiwan's Electoral Politics and Democratic Transition: Riding the Third Wave (1996), eds. Charles Chi-Hsiang Chang & Hung-Mao Tien; Edward S. Steinfeld, Playing Our Game:Why China's Rise Doesn't Threaten the West (2010), Oxford University Press, pp. 217–22.
- Erik J. Zürcher, Turkey: A Modern History (I.B. Tauris: rev. ed. 1997), pp. 176–206.
- Ayse Gül Altinay, The Myth of the Military-Nation: Militarism, Gender, and Education in Turkey (Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), pp. 19–20.
- Daniel Compagnon, A Predictable Tragedy: Robert Mugabe and the Collapse of Zimbabwe (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011).
- Andrew J. Nathan, "Authoritarian Resilience", Journal of Democracy, 14.1 (2003), pp. 6–17.
- Cox, David (2005). Sign Wars: The Culture Jammers Strike Back!. LedaTape Organisation. p. 108. ISBN 978-0-9807701-5-5. Retrieved 22 October 2011.
- "Retired Site PBS Programs". pbs.org. Retrieved 4 September 2016.
- "The way of the hippie is antithetical to all repressive hierarchical power structures since they are adverse to the hippie goals of peace, love and freedom ... Hippies don't impose their beliefs on others. Instead, hippies seek to change the world through reason and by living what they believe."Stone 1994, "The Way of the Hippy"
- McLaughlin, Paul (2007). Anarchism and Authority. Aldershot: Ashgate. p. 10. ISBN 0-7546-6196-2.
- Brandt, Mark J.; Henry, P. J. (2012). "Gender Inequality and Gender Differences in Authoritarianism". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 38 (10): 1301–15. doi:10.1177/0146167212449871. PMID 22733982.
- Juan J. Linz, "An Authoritarian Regime: The Case of Spain", in Cleavages, Ideologies and Party Systems (eds. Eric Allard & Yrjo Littunen) (Helsinki: Academic, 1964)