1) autocracy (autocracy or a small number of power holders). They can be one person (monarch, president, military dictator) or a group of people (military junta, oligarchic group);

2) unlimited power, its non-control of citizens. At the same time, the government can rule with the help of laws, but it accepts them solely at its own discretion;

3) reliance on strength. The authorities have sufficient power resources to suppress the opposition if necessary;

4) monopolization of power and politics, prevention of real political opposition and competition. However, authoritarianism, unlike totalitarianism, allows the existence of a limited number of parties, trade unions and other organizations, but only if they are controlled by the authorities. Often the absence of opposition under authoritarianism is caused not by opposition from the authorities, but by the unpreparedness of society to create political organizations, the lack of a need for political self-organization among the population;

5) renunciation of total control over society, non-intervention or limited interference in non-political spheres, primarily in the economy. The attention of the state includes issues of ensuring state security, public order, defense, foreign policy, although it can also influence the strategy of economic development, pursue an active social policy without destroying the mechanisms of market self-regulation;

6) recruitment of the political elite through co-optation, appointment from above, rather than competitive struggle in elections.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, totalitarian systems can be considered as systems of an authoritarian type. However, the totalitarian logic of public life presupposes something more than a simple abolition of political competition. If authoritarianism only limits political pluralism, then totalitarian systems tend to abolish any pluralism in the structure of society, to establish a single, "totalitarian" pattern of social interaction.

Over the past 20 years, a lot of non-democratic - totalitarian and authoritarian - regimes have collapsed or transformed into democratic republics or states on a democratic basis. A common drawback of undemocratic political systems is that they were not under the control of the people, which means that the nature of their relationship with citizens depended primarily on the will of the rulers. In past centuries, the possibility of arbitrariness on the part of authoritarian rulers was significantly restrained by the traditions of government, the relatively high education and upbringing of monarchs and the aristocracy, their self-control based on religious and moral codes, as well as the opinion of the church and the threat of popular uprisings. In the modern era, these factors have either disappeared altogether, or their effect has been greatly weakened. Therefore, only a democratic form of government can reliably curb power, guarantee the protection of citizens from state arbitrariness. For those peoples who are ready for individual freedom and responsibility, limiting their own egoism, respecting the law and human rights, democracy really creates the best opportunities for individual and social development, the realization of humanistic values: freedom, equality, justice, social creativity.

List of used literature

2.Aron R. Democracy and totalitarianism. M., 1993.

3. Power in the transition from totalitarianism to democracy. // Free thought. - 1993 - No. 8.

4. Gadzhiev K.S. Political Science: Textbook. - M., 1995.

5. Theory of Law and State: Textbook // ed. Lazareva V.V. - M., 2001

Authoritarianism is usually characterized as a type of regime that occupies an intermediate position between totalitarianism and democracy. However, such a characterization does not indicate the essential features of the phenomenon as a whole, even if the features of totalitarianism and democracy are clearly distinguished in it.

Essentially significant in defining authoritarianism is the nature of the relationship between power and society. These relationships are built more on coercion than persuasion, although the regime is liberalizing public life and there is no longer a well-defined guiding ideology. An authoritarian regime allows limited and controlled pluralism in political thinking, opinions and actions, and tolerates opposition.

An authoritarian regime is a state-political structure of society in which political power is exercised by a specific person (class, party, elite group, etc.) with minimal participation of the people. Authoritarianism is inherent in power and politics, but its foundations and degree are different. Natural, innate qualities of a political leader ("authoritarian", imperious personality) can act as determining factors; reasonable, rational, justified by the situation (necessity of a special kind, for example, a state of war, social crisis, etc.); social (the emergence of social or national conflicts), etc., up to the irrational, when authoritarianism goes into its extreme form - totalitarianism, despotism, the creation of a particularly cruel, repressive regime. Authoritarian is any imposition of the will of power on society, and not accepted voluntarily and conscious obedience. Objective grounds Authoritarianism can be associated with the active transformational activities of the authorities. The fewer such grounds and the more inactive the authorities, the more obvious are the subjective, personal grounds for authoritarianism.

In its most general form, authoritarianism has taken on the appearance of a system of rigid political rule, constantly using coercive and forceful methods to regulate basic social processes. Because of this, the most important political institutions in society are the disciplinary structures of the state: its law enforcement agencies (army, police, special services), as well as the means of ensuring political stability corresponding to them (prisons, concentration camps, preventive detentions, group and mass repressions, mechanisms of strict control on the behavior of citizens). With this style of ruling, the opposition is excluded not only from the sphere of decision-making, but also from political life in general. Elections or other procedures aimed at identifying public opinion, aspirations and requests of citizens are either absent or used purely formally.

By blocking ties with the masses, authoritarianism (with the exception of its charismatic forms of government) loses the ability to use the support of the population to strengthen the ruling regime. However, power that is not based on an understanding of the needs of broad social circles, as a rule, is unable to create political orders that would express public needs. Focusing in the conduct of state policy only on the narrow interests of the ruling stratum, authoritarianism uses methods of patronage and control over its initiatives in relations with the population. Therefore, authoritarian power can only provide coercive legitimacy. But public support, so limited in its capabilities, limits the regime's opportunities for political maneuver, flexible and operational management in the face of complex political crises and conflicts.

Steady disregard for public opinion, the formation of state policy without the involvement of the public in most cases make the authoritarian government unable to create any serious incentives for the social initiative of the population. True, due to forced mobilization, individual regimes can, in short historical periods, bring to life a high civic activity of the population. However, in most cases, authoritarianism destroys the initiative of the public as a source of economic growth and inevitably leads to a decline in the effectiveness of government, low economic efficiency of government.

The narrowness of the social support of power, which relies on coercion and isolation of public opinion from the centers of power, is also manifested in the practical inaction of ideological instruments. Instead of the systematic use of ideological doctrines capable of stimulating public opinion and ensuring the interested participation of citizens in political and social life, authoritarian ruling elites mainly use mechanisms aimed at concentrating their powers and coordinating interests within the elite when making decisions. Because of this, behind-the-scenes deals, bribery, secret collusion and other technologies of shadow government are becoming the main ways of coordinating interests in the development of state policy.

An additional source of preservation of this type of government is the use by the authorities of certain features of mass consciousness, the mentality of citizens, religious and cultural-regional traditions, which generally indicate a fairly stable civil passivity of the population. It is mass civic passivity that serves as a source and prerequisite for the tolerance of the majority of the population towards the ruling group, a condition for maintaining its political stability.

However, the systematic use of harsh methods of political management, the reliance of the authorities on mass passivity does not exclude a certain activity of citizens and the preservation of their associations of some freedom of social action. The family, the church, certain social and ethnic groups, as well as some social movements (trade unions) have their own (albeit modest) prerogatives and opportunities for influencing power and manifestations of activity. But even these social sources of the political system, acting under the strict control of the authorities, are not capable of giving rise to any powerful party movements, causing mass political protest. In such systems of government, there is potential rather than real opposition to the state order. The activity of opposition groups and associations limits the power in establishing its complete and absolute control over society, rather than trying to really adjust the goals and objectives of the government's political course.

The leadership of various spheres of society under authoritarianism is not so total, there is no strictly organized control over the social and economic infrastructure of civil society, over production, trade unions, educational institutions, mass organizations, and the media. Autocracy does not require a demonstration of loyalty on the part of the population, as under totalitarianism, the absence of open political confrontation is enough for it. However, the regime is merciless to manifestations of real political competition for power, to the actual participation of the population in decision-making on the most important issues of society, therefore authoritarianism suppresses basic civil rights.

In order to keep unlimited power in its hands, the authoritarian regime circulates elites not by competitive struggle in elections, but by co-opting (volitional introduction) of them into the governing structures. Due to the fact that the process of transfer of power in such regimes occurs not through the procedures established by law for the replacement of leaders, but by force, these regimes are not legitimate. However, even though they do not rely on the support of the people, this does not prevent them from existing for a long time and successfully solving strategic tasks.

In a generalized form, the most characteristic features of authoritarian regimes are the following:

The concentration of power in the hands of one person or group. The bearer of power can be a charismatic leader, a monarch, or a military junta. As in totalitarianism, society is alienated from power, there is no mechanism for its succession. The elite is formed by appointment from above;

The rights and freedoms of citizens are limited mainly in the political sphere. Laws are predominantly on the side of the state, not the individual;

The society is dominated by the official ideology, but there is tolerance towards other ideological currents loyal to the ruling regime;

Politics is monopolized by power. The activities of political parties and the opposition are prohibited or restricted. Trade unions are controlled by the authorities;

State control does not extend to non-political spheres - the economy, culture, religion, private life;

The vast public sector is heavily regulated by the state. As a rule, it functions within the framework of a market economy and gets along well with private entrepreneurship. The economy can be both highly efficient and inefficient;

The media are censored and allowed to criticize certain shortcomings in public policy while remaining loyal to the system;

Power relies on force sufficient to, if necessary, force the population into obedience. Mass repressions, as under totalitarianism, are not carried out;

With positive results of activity, the regime can be supported by the majority of society. A minority is fighting for the transition to democracy. Civil society may exist, but depends on the state;

The regime is characterized by unitary forms of the state with a rigid centralization of power. The rights of national minorities are limited.

Our century has never become the era of the complete triumph of democracy. More than half of the world's population still lives under authoritarian or totalitarian dictatorships. The latter are becoming less and less, practically the remaining dictatorial regimes are authoritarian and exist in the countries of the "third world".

After 1945 dozens of countries had liberated themselves from European colonialism, and their leaders were full of optimistic plans for rapid economic development and social progress. Some observers thought that other mother countries would have something to learn from their former colonies. But the second half of the twentieth century turned into a tragedy rather than a triumph for the liberated countries. Only a few of them managed to achieve political democracy and economic prosperity. Over the past thirty years, dozens of Third World countries have experienced an endless series of coups and revolutions, which are sometimes difficult to distinguish from each other. One authoritarianism was replaced by another, as was the case, for example, in Iran, when in 1979 Khomeini's power was established instead of the Shah's regime. In Third World countries, dictatorships dominate and often find support there among the majority of the population. This is facilitated by some features of the development of Eastern societies.

These include, firstly, the specific role of the community. The political and cultural experience of the countries of Asia, Africa and, to a lesser extent, Latin America is not permeated with the idea of ​​the independent value of human life, does not contain an idea of ​​the positive significance of individuality. A person is thought of as part of a whole, as a member of a certain society, the norms of which he must obey both in thoughts and in behavior, that is, the collective prevails over the personal. The role of various kinds of leaders is also great, who take upon themselves the right to interpret norms and embody the unity of the community, clan, etc.

Such relations dominate here, when the head of the community "patronizes" its members, and for this they are obliged to "serve" him faithfully. In such societies, political behavior is guided not by worldview, but by the behavior of the leaders of the community, clan, etc. In most Third World countries, political opponents are divided mainly on the basis of clans.

Secondly, "in the third world" the state has a significant weight, since civil society is not yet developed. There is no powerful middle stratum capable of becoming the backbone of democracy and strong civil power. The role of the executive power, which is the consolidating force of society, is growing, since it is divided by numerous religious, ethnic, class and other partitions and not a single political force in it can become a hegemon. In this state of affairs, only the state can mobilize all the means for modernization and accelerated development.

These moments create prerequisites for authoritarian power. Almost all attempts to introduce democracy to Third World countries, such as African countries, by copying the constitutions and political systems of metropolitan countries have failed. The unstable "democracies" that were established there were not the result of a long and stubborn struggle by the masses themselves for their rights, as was the case in Europe.

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, authoritarian regimes, primarily military dictatorships, found their supporters not only in developing countries, but also among some representatives of the Western academic community. A number of political scientists and politicians believed that these regimes are the most appropriate type of government for countries making the transition from a traditional to an industrial society. Hopes were placed that the army, as the most organized force, would be able to carry out all the necessary transformations "from above", that it was able to resist corrupt elements in the state apparatus and was a symbol of national unity, since it was recruited from various social strata, nationalities and regions. Some US and Western European observers suggested that the military would be the easiest way to introduce Western economic and political principles into the newly-free countries.

The reality turned out to be different. In most African and Asian countries, under the dominance of military authoritarian dictatorships, the army has found itself excessively prone to bureaucratization and organizational routine. Corruption and nepotism flourished among the military. Military spending increased sharply at the expense of an equally sharp reduction in funds for necessary reforms. The military most often turned out to be unable to create such political institutions, in whose activities representatives of various political movements and forces could participate. On the contrary, they sought to put all spheres of public life under their own control. In most cases, the belief in the ability of the army to become a unifying center for different social groups was not confirmed either.

The armies were unable to resist ethnic and sectarian divisions, tribal divisions and the separatist movement. In many "Third World" armies, there are several different factions organizing conspiracies and counter-plots. This often leads to protracted bloody conflicts (Pakistan, Chal, Uganda, etc.).

Regimes with frequent military coups were called praetorian by analogy with ancient Rome, where the praetorian guard often elevated a candidate she liked to the throne or overthrew him if he did not suit her with his rule. Therefore, for the majority of modern "emperors and saviors of the fatherland" the support of the army remains the main source of maintaining power and the main concern.

Modern authoritarianism has various forms and differs in many ways from past versions. For example, in Latin America in the XX - early XX century. authoritarian leaders were caudil-self-appointed masters of certain territories, who often had their own armed detachments. This was possible under a weak national government, to which the caudillos did not obey, but often took it into their own hands. Later, authoritarian leaders became the holders of predominantly national rather than local power, using the army for their own purposes.

However, a completely legitimate question arises: if an authoritarian regime violates the constitution and human rights, then how does it achieve mass support and justify its existence in the eyes of fellow citizens? After all, not everywhere and not always terror is used for this, more often, perhaps, the authoritarian system tries by word or in some other way, but to convince, and not to force people to believe in the correctness of their methods and measures. Since references to law and tradition sometimes look blasphemous, dictators, as a rule, motivate their actions and their policies with the "severe need to restore order", "national interests", etc. The charismatic element has always been the main factor in the desire to justify the dictatorship.

The dictator is also helped by his certain popularity among the masses, therefore both the dictators themselves and their associates try to convince public opinion that their interests coincide with the interests of the broad masses of the people and that they act on behalf of the healthy forces of society. Often, the socio-political ambitions of the leader, and sometimes his sincere confidence in his strength and rightness, make him appeal to public opinion and, for this, pay special attention to creating his own positive image (image) in the eyes of his fellow citizens.

Very often, authoritarianism justifies its policy by serving the national idea, which attracts a lot of supporters. This technique works best when it becomes clear to everyone that neither the practically uninterrupted meetings of parliament and party clubs, nor the packages of laws being passed, are moving things forward one step. If the government is powerless and complete apathy reigns in its corridors, if the system is ineffective and irritates citizens, then the danger of dictatorship increases many times over. The dictator comes to power under the slogans of forgetting party strife in the name of a higher house in front of the Motherland.

In the second half of the twentieth century. dictators also seek to acquire a certain ideological coloring.

Like totalitarianism, Western scholars distinguish between left-wing and right-wing authoritarianism, although here this distinction is less clear. Left authoritarian dictatorships are based on various versions of socialism (Arab, African, etc.).

These include many former and current regimes, such as, for example, dictator J. Nyerere in Tazania, H. Assad in Syria, and many others. They arose in the 1960s and 1970s, when the attractiveness of socialism in the world was quite high, since the Soviet system then demonstrated high rates of development and generously helped its followers in the newly-free countries.

The leaders of the liberated states sought to adopt a common scheme: one party, leadership of all political organizations from a single center, state ownership in the economy, propaganda accessible to the general population, etc. They were greatly impressed by the rapid industrialization of the USSR with the help of command methods of leadership and the rise of its military power. Besides socialism, the values ​​of which these leaders resolutely rejected.

Many left-wing dictatorships, such as in Vietnam, have established themselves in developing countries, taking over the leadership of the national liberation movement. However, even while sometimes uncritically perceiving the experience of the USSR, these countries essentially remained true to their centuries-old traditions: often behind the humanism of words a struggle for power or tribal antagonisms was hidden and hidden, opposition clans were declared "hostile to the regime" and a struggle began against them. The negative that the copied political system carried in itself was multiplied many times under left-wing authoritarian regimes: the cult of the leader, the bloated bureaucracy, the administrative-command style of managing the life of the country, the practice of constant leaps forward, etc.

These and many other factors determined the emergence of social groups with different economic, political, and other interests. This pluralism of interests demanded reform of the political and economic systems. The time for change has begun.

However, it soon became clear that it was impossible to simply replace the previous model with another one offered by the West. An insufficiently high level of socio-economic development and the inclusion of a person in a certain traditional community limit the formation of an individual principle and make him trust the authority of a certain leader. And although the leaders of the countries undergoing a period of reform talk about reorienting their policies and something is really changing there, nevertheless, a number of examples indicate that the essence of authoritarian regimes remains the same: there is no legal change of leaders, one party dominates with a vertical -hierarchical structure, which affects the principles of formation of all other structures in the state, many democratic norms are still declared, but not implemented in practice, etc.

Right-wing authoritarian regimes include the Arab monarchies of the Middle East (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and some others), a number of Asian states (Singapore, Indonesia, etc.), former Latin American countries during the period of the juntas, and individual African states.

A classic example of military authoritarianism was the juntas that existed in Latin America in the 1960s and 1980s. When they came to power, they sought to exclude any possibility of political radicalism and revolution, hoping to secure the support of the majority of the population not only through the direct suppression of dissent, but also through "propaganda by deed" - the formation of an effective economic policy, the development of domestic industry, the creation of jobs, etc. . P.

Such a policy does not always mean a transition to economic liberalism, since any military regime is trying to choose its own way to achieve its goals. For example, the degree of state intervention in the economy and the participation of foreign capital was different: in Brazil, state planning was carried out, in Argentina a large public sector of the economy was created, in Chile, Pinochet, on the contrary, privatized a similar sector that existed there before him.

Also, when classifying authoritarian regimes, they can be divided into the following three groups: one-party systems, military regimes, and regimes of personal power. The main criterion for such a division of regimes is the ruling group, its main characteristics and ways of interacting with society. In all three cases, there is, as Huntington defines it, a persistent drive to minimize elite competition and mass political participation. The only exception in this series is the South African apartheid regime, which was a racial oligarchy and excluded more than 70% of the population from participating in politics, while at the same time practicing fairly broad competition within the white community. To these three groups of authoritarian regimes, one more can be added - bureaucratic-oligarchic regimes. Power in these regimes is exercised by a group of individuals, often representing the interests of various social strata, but the main and unconditional role in formulating and making decisions belongs to the state bureaucracy.

one-party systems. The term "one-party system" can be used, as noted by J. Sartori, in three cases. First, in relation to a situation where one party monopolizes political power, not allowing the existence of any other parties and political organizations. Second, when one party acts as the hegemonic one, and all the rest, existing, do not have a chance to compete with it on an equal basis. Thirdly, a situation of dominant parties, when the same party consistently receives an overwhelming majority of votes in parliament. In this situation, the parties not only exist as legitimate, but, despite their lack of effectiveness, have equal starting conditions in the political struggle. The third example goes beyond authoritarian politics, because it includes free and fair competition, the main condition of democratic systems. These three models of one-party system may well transform into each other: a hegemonic party has a chance to evolve into a dominant one, while a dominant one can degenerate into a hegemonic and even monopolistic one.

In most cases, one-party systems are either established as a result of revolutions or imposed from outside. This was the case, for example, with the countries of Eastern Europe, in which one-party systems became the post-war result of implanting the experience of the USSR. Here, in addition to countries with a communist regime of government, Taiwan and Mexico can be attributed. In such systems, the party monopolizes and concentrates power in its hands, legitimizes its rule with the help of an appropriate ideology, and access to power itself is directly associated with belonging to a party organization. Such systems often reach a very high level of institutionalization, sometimes (USSR, Germany) coming close to the totalitarian organization of political power.

One-party systems can differ significantly from each other. This is quite understandable, because the differences may relate to the degree of centralization of power, the possibilities of ideological mobilization, the relationship between the party-state and party-society, etc. Simplifying somewhat, such differences can be reduced to two main groups.

1. To what extent the party successfully overcomes competition from other contenders for political power. Among these applicants, leaders endowed with charismatic qualities should be singled out; traditional actors (primarily the church and the monarchy); bureaucratic actors (officialdom); parliamentary actors (national assemblies and parliaments, local authorities); military; separate socio-economic groups (peasants, workers, managers, entrepreneurs, technocrats and intellectuals).

2. To what extent the party succeeds in isolating the main social strata from free participation in politics and mobilizing these strata to support their own power.

Based on these two features, M. Hagopian distinguished the following four types of one-party regimes: 1) dominant mobilization; 2) subordinate mobilization; 3) dominant-pluralistic; 4) subordinate-pluralistic (dominant-mobilization regimes are very close to totalitarian regimes and actually merge with them. Competition among the elites is reduced here to a minimum, and the mobilization of society reaches a very significant scale. The opposite of these regimes are subordinate-pluralistic one-party systems, which are unable to significantly limit intra-elite competition, nor to attract the support of their rule from the main sections of society. Soviet society in the late 1930s and at the turn of the 1970s and 1980s can serve as a good illustration of the evolution of the regime from a dominant mobilization to a subordinate pluralistic one. Between these poles are subordinate mobilization and dominant-pluralistic modes. An example of the second would be the Brezhnev regime in its first stage of functioning, when the party was largely able to maintain control over other elite factions, but society was less and less able to be set in motion by once-reliable ideological formulations. As for the subordinate-mobilization regimes, the Bolshevik regime at the initial stages of its stabilization, apparently, can be considered as one of the examples of such regimes. The existing differences between the Leninist and Stalinist concepts of the party did not in any way affect the mass strata of Russian society that supported the emerging Bolshevik regime.

military regimes. Unlike single-party regimes, military regimes most often emerge as a result of coup d'état against civilians in charge. In political science, the designation of these regimes as "praetorian" is also well-known. The task of the Praetorian Guard, which existed under the emperors in the last days of the Roman Empire, was to protect their safety. However, the strategic position of the Praetorians often led them to do exactly the opposite of what was expected - assassinating the emperor and selling his office to the highest bidder.

In this regard, the term "praetorian society" is often used in political science, meaning that in society there is a very high probability of military coups as a means of resolving the accumulated political contradictions. There are four main characteristics of the "praetorian society":

1) A serious lack of consensus on the basic functions and methods of government. In other words, in society there are no rules of the game among political actors.

2) The struggle for power and wealth takes on especially sharp and rude forms.

3) Super-rich minorities face huge impoverished strata of society in much the same way as Marx described when he characterized the final stage of capitalism.

4) There is a low level of institutionalization of political and administrative bodies, because the level of legitimacy of power is extremely low, and the level of instability is very high. The decline of public morality, corruption and venality lead to the discrediting of political life and its subsequent interruption. There is a strong temptation for the military to intervene, driven either by the desire to put an end to the weak and corrupt civilian regime, or by the desire to get a greater than available share in the management of society and the distribution of public wealth. The emerging military regime most often exercises power on the institutional basis inherited from it, ruling either collegially (as a junta) or periodically transferring the main government post through the circle of higher general ranks.

A huge number of practical examples of military rule in Latin America, Africa, Greece, Turkey, Pakistan, South Korea and other countries, on the one hand, has already made it possible to create a fairly developed theory of the relationship between the military and civilians. The most important components of this theory are the classification of military coups (reformist, consolidating, conservative, veto coups) and the causes that caused them, analysis of the mentality and ethical values ​​of the military (nationalism, collectivism, negative attitude towards politics, internal discipline, puritanical way of life, etc. .), the attitude of the military to modernization and their potential in its implementation.

Modes of personal power. This category also hides a fairly wide variety of models of the exercise of political power. Their common characteristic is that the main source of authority is the individual leader and that power and access to power depend on access to the leader, closeness to him, dependence on him. Quite often, regimes of personal power degenerate into what M. Weber defined as sultanist regimes, with their characteristic corruption, relations of patronage and nepotism. Portugal under Salazar, Spain under Franco, the Philippines under Marcos, India under Indira Gandhi, Romania under Ceausescu are more or less convincing examples of personal power regimes.

In addition, there are a number of mixed regimes that can evolve into a regime of personal power, initially having other sources of authority and exercise of power. The coup in Chile, carried out by a group of military men, subsequently led to the establishment of the regime of personal power of General A. Pinochet, both because of his personal qualities and the length of his tenure. An obvious and obvious example is Stalin's regime, which went through various stages of evolution, relying initially on populist slogans, then on a streamlined party machine, and finally, to an ever greater extent, on the charisma of the "leader."

Bureaucratic-oligarchic regimes. These regimes are often considered together with the question of military regimes. This is quite legitimate, because the military, having come to power, use the state apparatus and political institutions inherited by them. However, there may be differences in leadership structures as to whether it is military or government officials who have the initiative and final say in vital political decisions. These differences make it possible to distinguish bureaucratic-oligarchic regimes into a separate group.

In bureaucratic-oligarchic regimes, formal powers most often belong to parliamentary bodies, but in practice both parties and parliamentary factions are too weak to compete with a powerful corporate bloc of forces. This bloc can be composed of representatives of official structures of the board (President, Head of Government, Speaker of Parliament, etc.); powerful interest groups representing, for example, large financial capital; heads of law enforcement agencies and other forces that enter into a temporary alliance and establish corporate rules of the political game to ensure relative stability in society and achieve mutually beneficial goals. As a rule, such regimes are very unstable and are established in an intermediate state for society, when the former source of authority (general elections) weakens, loses its strength as a hoop holding society together, and a new method of social integration that can replace it does not arise. Those in power are afraid of general elections, ideological motivation has no prospects in mobilizing public support, so the regime is kept in power by using bribery of potentially powerful rivals and gradually opening access to power for them.

The most important characteristic of bureaucratic-oligarchic regimes is corporatism, i.e. the formation and relatively successful functioning of a special type of structures that link society with the state, bypassing political parties and legislative authorities. Officially representing private interests before the state, such structures are formally subordinate to the state and cut off all legitimate channels of access to the state for other members of society and public organizations. Distinctive features of corporatism are: a) the special role of the state in establishing and maintaining a special socio-economic order, basically, significantly different from the principles of a market economy; b) varying degrees of restrictions imposed on the functioning of liberal democratic institutions and their role in political decision-making; c) the economy mainly functions based on private ownership of the means of production and wage labor; d) producer organizations receive a special intermediate status between the state and public actors, performing not only the functions of representing interests, but also regulating on behalf of the state. To one degree or another, these characteristics of corporatism are manifested in all bureaucratic-oligarchic regimes.

The state in the conditions of bureaucratic authoritarianism defends the interests of a bloc consisting of three main driving forces. This is, first of all, the national bourgeoisie that controls the largest and most dynamic national companies. Then, international capital, which is closely connected with national capital and in many ways constitutes the driving force behind the economic development of this country. This interaction of national and international capital has led, in particular, to the formation of an additional number of subsidiaries of multinational corporations. A high degree of instability, acute political conflicts, the "communist threat", and periodically emerging economic crises prompted this bloc to rely on another important force capable of preventing possible social disintegration - the army.

Defending the interests of this block of forces, the state is endowed with a number of characteristics close to fascist - a high degree of authoritarianism and bureaucracy, as well as active interference in the course of economic processes. This role of the state is strengthened the more clearly, the more obvious the need to protect the interests of national capital from the increased claims of international capital becomes. The state appears more and more as the patron of the national bourgeoisie. Such a pattern existed in a number of Latin American countries, until the popular sector, the growth of which was carefully controlled by the state, developed and revealed its claims to participation in political activity, until the interests of the national bourgeoisie diversified, which could no longer be resolved within the framework of an authoritarian regime.

Also, the following varieties of authoritarian regimes can be added to the above classification of authoritarian regimes.

The populist regime is, as its name implies (in Latin populus - the people), the product of the awakening of the majority of the people to independent political life. However, it does not give the masses real opportunities to influence the political process. They are given the unenviable role of "extras", approving and practically supporting the actions of the government, which supposedly pursues the only goal - the people's good. To maintain this illusion, populist regimes make extensive use of social demagoguery, which is what the modern political lexicon uses the word "populism" to designate. In reality, however, populist regimes more often take into account the interests of the economically privileged sections of the population, and their real backbone is the bureaucracy.

Populist regimes are based on one (the only legal or dominant over the others) party, which proclaims national development as its main goal. The phraseology used by such regimes is usually nationalist, depicting the nation as being engaged in a deadly fight with hostile forces - transnational corporations, conservatives, communists, or generally confusing politicians. Although in theory all citizens have civil rights, in fact this is far from the case, there are many ways to prevent open struggle for leadership: citizens are given the freedom to choose candidates, but not parties: either not all parties are allowed to participate in elections, or the results of the vote are simply rigged .

The oldest populist regime in the world until very recently (when the so-called "Mexistroy" began) existed in Mexico, where the Institutional Revolutionary Party (IRP) has been in power since 1921. The opposition acted legally, but hopes to be in power one day it had little: under the electoral law, the party that won the support of a relative majority of voters won the vast majority of seats in Congress. And the IRP has always received a relative majority of votes, because in seven to ten years it has grown together with the state apparatus and, no less important, permeated the entire society with its organizational structure. Once radical, over time, the IRP has moved to a rather moderate position: it no longer fights either the church or capitalism. We must admit. that Mexico, under the rule of the PRI, did not manage to avoid the ills typical of authoritarian-bureaucratic regimes: acute inequality, corruption and repressive tendencies, as well as stagnation in the economy. "Mexistroy" in many ways contributed to the democratization of the country. However, as evidenced by the recent peasant uprising in southern Mexico, decades of authoritarian-bureaucratic rule have left their mark.

Quite characteristic of populist regimes is the cult of "founding leaders" such as Kenyatta in Kenya. Nyerere in Tanzania. Kaunda in Zambia When a leader dies, his charisma (this term introduced by M. Weber is used in political science to reflect the exceptional, superhuman qualities attributed to the bearer of political power) can be difficult to transfer to the party or other institutions of power, and this is one of the main difficulties of the regime. Another major challenge comes from the military. Mexico escaped this threat only because the country's military elite since 1921 has been politicized and closely associated with the political leadership. However, in African countries, many populist regimes were forced to coexist with professional armies, the foundations of which were laid by the colonialists. Often this coexistence ended badly for civilian politicians. Kwame Nkrumah's regime in Ghana was considered exceptionally stable.

Populist regimes resort to various measures to neutralize the danger from the military: bribery (by providing the military with extremely high salaries, privileges, etc.); politicization of the army (by creating political agencies); creation of parallel armed forces in the form of a popular militia or special units subordinate directly to "leader" But none of these measures guarantee the regime's survival.

Egalitarian-authoritarian regime: closed, with a monolithic elite. The French word egalite means "equality," and the term egalitarianism, derived from it, has long been used to characterize ideologies. striving to overcome economic inequality. The most influential of them already in the 19th century was communism (in the formulation proposed by prominent German scientists and somewhat less successful politicians Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels), which in 1917 reached the position of the official ideology of Soviet Russia, and then a number of other countries. That is why regimes of this type are often called communist or communist party regimes. In reality, however, neither the commitment of the political leadership to a certain ideology, nor the fact that the communist party is in power yet create a configuration of institutions and norms that determines the specifics of the regime: about its "loyalty to the ideas of Marxism- Leninism" was declared (not without reason counting on Soviet assistance) by many leaders of the authoritarian-bureaucratic regimes of the "Third World", and the Republic of San Marino, where the Communists for many years were the leading force in the ruling coalitions, remained a liberal democracy. The term "egalitarian-authoritarian regime" proposed by J.Blondel. maybe not very successful either, but he, at least. allows us to focus on more essential characteristics.

Like a populist, an egalitarian-authoritarian regime arises in the context of a political awakening of the masses. However, if the first, acting on behalf of the people, actually makes them come to terms with the state of affairs, then the second, relying on the activity of the masses, actually changes it radically. The most important sign of an egalitarian-authoritarian regime is the breakdown of property relations, which often leads to the complete elimination of landownership and private entrepreneurship. Economic life is placed under the control of the state, which means that the ruling elite also becomes an economically privileged class. Thus, the egalitarian-authoritarian regime reproduces the phenomenon of "power-property". The monolithic nature of the elite also manifests itself in smoothing out the differences between the administrative and political elites. An official under the conditions of an egalitarian-authoritarian regime cannot, even from a purely theoretical point of view, be outside of politics. The party provides the organizational framework that allows the monolithic "nomenklatura" to exercise control over society. Its leading role is fixed institutionally or even constitutionally, as was the case in the USSR. Hence the closed nature of the regime.

The political activity of the masses is the most important prerequisite for the emergence of an egalitarian-authoritarian regime, because otherwise it would not be able to break the resistance of the "old" economic elites. However, even in the future, opportunities remain for the participation of the masses in politics. Highlighting this characteristic of an egalitarian-authoritarian regime. political science proceeds from such obvious facts as a high degree of politicization of all public life, periodic intensive political propaganda campaigns, and the provision of citizens with the opportunity to elect and be elected to various positions. The Communist Party itself can be seen as an important mechanism for inclusion in political life. Most of these regimes also had mass organizations such as popular fronts, which exist to this day in the PRC and the DPRK. Vietnam and Laos, or Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (Cuba). Many countries have allowed and even encouraged

The activities of the "democratic parties", which recognized the leading role of the Communists. It is important, however, to emphasize that participation under the conditions of an egalitarian-authoritarian regime is regulated (sometimes the etymologically clear term "dirigisme" is used). The means of political mobilization of the masses was the communist ideology, which already in the 1960s broke up into several local varieties that reflected the cultural characteristics of individual countries (Mao Tse Dunide in China, "Juche ideas" in North Korea).

Authoritarian-inegalitarian regime: closed, with a differentiated elite. Unlike communist ideology, with its emphasis on social justice, the rhetoric of authoritarian-inegalitarian regimes is based on the idea of ​​inequality. Hence the term used in the classification of J. Blondel (the prefix "in", in fact, here it means "not"). Authoritarian-but-inegalitarian regimes do not strive for a complete transformation of property relations and. sometimes entering into conflicts with certain economically privileged strata, on the whole they are more likely to take them under their protection. The awakened political activity of the masses is directed "to a different address", which allows the wealthy classes to lead a relatively comfortable existence.

This type of regime lasted longest in Italy, where the fascist party came to power in 1922 and lost it more than twenty years later, after the country's catastrophic defeat in World War II. The leader of the Italian fascists, Benito Mussolini, began his career as a member of the socialist party, and belonged to its left wing. Later, however, he began to propagate the idea that the oppression of Italian workers by Italian capitalists was inferior in importance to the exploitation to which the “proletarian nation” as a whole was subjected to by foreign powers. This simple postulate turned out to be attractive enough for some part of the economically disadvantaged strata of the population and made it possible to create a mass movement that brought Mussolini to power.

When we hear about an authoritarian political regime, most people perceive this concept as a purely negative one. It is customary to mix authoritarianism and totalitarianism. But are these concepts really the same? Or is there a significant difference between them? Let's find out what constitutes an authoritarian regime.

Definition of the term

An authoritarian political regime is a practically unlimited form of power of one person or group of people with the appearance of some democratic institutions. Also, under it, some of the freedoms for the population in the economy, spiritual life, or in another area may be preserved, if these freedoms do not pose a threat to the regime itself.

Classification of political regimes

In order to understand the place of authoritarianism among other political regimes, it is necessary to pay attention to their classification. There are many types of forms of government. Three types dominate among them: authoritarian, totalitarian, democratic political regimes. In addition, anarchy is singled out separately, which is defined as anarchy.

A democratic regime in its ideal form is characterized by the maximum participation of the people in the administration of the state and in the change of power. The totalitarian system, on the contrary, is marked by the complete control of power over all areas of life and activity of citizens, who, in turn, do not take part in solving state issues. Moreover, power is often actually usurped by one person or a group of people from a narrow circle.

An authoritarian regime is somewhere between a democratic and a totalitarian one. Many political scientists present it as a compromise version of these systems. We will talk about the features of authoritarianism and its differences from other political regimes later.

Differences between authoritarian and democratic regimes

The main difference between authoritarianism and democracy lies in the fact that the people are actually removed from governing the country. Elections and referendums, if they are held, are purely formal in nature, since their result is a foregone conclusion.

At the same time, pluralism, that is, a multi-party system, can exist under authoritarianism, as well as the preservation of democratic institutions that still continue to function, which creates the illusion of ruling the country by the people. This is what unites the authoritarian and democratic political regime.

Differences between authoritarianism and totalitarianism

The main difference is that under authoritarianism, the basis of power is the personal qualities of the leader or a group of leaders who have managed to seize the levers of government. Totalitarianism, on the contrary, is based on ideology. Often, totalitarian leaders are put forward by the ruling elite, which can even come to power democratically. Thus, under authoritarianism, the role of the leader is much higher than under totalitarianism. For example, an authoritarian regime can fall with the death of a leader, but a totalitarian system can only be ended by a general decline in the governance structure or military intervention by a third party.

As mentioned above, totalitarian and authoritarian regimes also differ in that the former often lacks democratic institutions completely, and under authoritarianism they can exist, although they have, by and large, a decorative function. Also, an authoritarian regime, unlike a totalitarian one, can allow the functioning of various political parties, and even moderate opposition. But, nevertheless, real forces capable of harming the ruling regime, both under authoritarianism and totalitarianism, are banned.

In addition, these two systems are also united by the fact that they lack real democracy and the ability of the people to govern the state.

Signs of an authoritarian system

The authoritarian regime of power has a number of features that distinguish it from other political systems. They allow to dissociate this type of government from other forms of government that exist in the world. Below we will analyze the main features of an authoritarian regime.

One of the main features of this system is the form of government in the form of autocracy, dictatorship or oligarchy. This implies the actual government of the state by one person or a limited group of persons. The access of ordinary citizens to this group is either completely impossible or significantly limited. This actually means that the government of the state becomes out of control of the people. National elections to the authorities, if they take place, are purely nominal, with a predetermined outcome.

An authoritarian regime is also distinguished by the monopolization of government by one person or a certain political force. This allows you to actually control and manage all branches of government - executive, legislative and judicial. Most often, it is representatives of the executive branch who usurp the functions of other structures. In turn, this fact leads to an increase in corruption at the top of society, since in fact the management and control bodies represent the same persons.

Signs of an authoritarian political regime are expressed in the absence of real opposition. The authorities can allow the existence of a "manual" opposition, which acts as a screen, designed to testify to the democratic nature of society. But in fact, such parties, on the contrary, further strengthen the authoritarian regime, actually serving it. The same forces that are able to really oppose the authorities are not allowed to political struggle and are subjected to repression.

There are signs of an authoritarian regime in the economic sphere as well. First of all, they are expressed in the control of people in power and their relatives over the country's largest enterprises. Not only political power is concentrated in the hands of these people, but also the management of financial flows, aimed at their personal enrichment. A person who does not have connections in higher circles, even if he has good business qualities, has no chance of becoming financially successful, since the economy is monopolized by those in power. However, these features of an authoritarian regime are not a mandatory attribute.

In turn, in an authoritarian society, the leadership of the country and members of their families are actually above the law. Their crimes are hushed up and go unpunished. The power structures of the country and law enforcement agencies are thoroughly corrupt and are not controlled by society.

In addition, this system of power does not seek to fully control society. The authoritarian regime focuses on absolute political and significant economic control, and in the sphere of culture, religion and education provides significant freedoms.

The main method of governing the country, which is used in an authoritarian regime, is command-administrative.

It should be noted that in order to judge the management system as authoritarian, it is not necessary to have all of the above features. For this, a few of them are enough. At the same time, the existence of one of these signs does not automatically make the state authoritarian. In fact, there are no clear criteria by which one could make a distinction between authoritarianism and totalitarianism with democracy. But the presence in the state of most of the factors described above already confirms that the system of government is authoritarian.

Classification of authoritarian regimes

Authoritarian systems in different countries can take a variety of forms, often outwardly dissimilar to each other. In this regard, it is customary to divide them into several typological types. Among them are the following:

• absolutist monarchy;
• sultan's regime;
• military-bureaucratic regime;
• racial democracy;
• corporate authoritarianism;
• post-totalitarian regimes;
• post-colonial regimes;
• socialist authoritarianism.

In the following, we will dwell on each of the above types in more detail.

Absolutist monarchy

This type of authoritarianism is inherent in modern absolute and dualistic monarchies. In such states, power is inherited. The monarch has either absolute powers to govern the country, or slightly limited.

The main examples of an authoritarian regime of this type are Nepal (until 2007), Ethiopia (until 1974), as well as the modern states of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Morocco. Moreover, the latter country is not an absolute monarchy, but a typical constitutional (dualist) one. But, despite this, the power of the Sultan in Morocco is so strong that this country can be classified as an authoritarian state.

Sultan's regime

This type of authoritarian regime is so named because the power of the ruler in the countries where it is applied is comparable to the power of medieval sultans. Officially, the position of the head of such states may have various titles, but in most known cases they held the presidential post. In addition, under the sultanic regime, there is the possibility of transferring power by inheritance, although this is not enshrined in law. The most famous leaders of countries dominated by this type of authoritarian regime were Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Rafael Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, Francois Duvalier in Haiti. The latter, by the way, managed to transfer power to his son Jean-Claude.

Sultanic regimes are characterized by the maximum concentration of power in one hand in comparison with other autocratic systems. Their distinguishing feature is the absence of ideology, the prohibition of a multi-party system, as well as absolute autocracy.

Military bureaucratic regime

A distinctive feature of this type of authoritarian regime is the seizure of power in the country by a military group through a coup. At first, all power is concentrated in the hands of the military, but in the future, representatives of the bureaucracy are increasingly involved in management. In the future, this type of governance may gradually take the path of democratization.

The main factors that lead to the establishment of military regimes are dissatisfaction with the existing government and fear of revolution "from below". It is the latter factor that further influences the restriction of democratic freedoms and the right to choose. Preventing the intelligentsia, which is opposed to such a regime, from power is its main task.

The most typical representatives of this type of authoritarianism are the regime of Nasser in Egypt, Pinochet in Chile, Peron in Argentina, and the 1930 and 1969 juntas in Brazil.

Racial democracy

Despite the fact that the word "democracy" is present in the name of this type of authoritarianism, this political regime provides freedoms and rights only to representatives of a certain nationality or race. Other nationalities are not allowed to participate in the political process, including through violence.

The most typical example of racial democracy is South Africa during the apartheid period.

Corporate authoritarianism

The corporate form of authoritarianism is considered to be its most typical form. It arises in societies with a relatively developed economy, in which various oligarchic groups (corporations) come to power. In such a state structure, ideology is practically absent, and the economic and other interests of the group that has come to power play a decisive role. As a rule, in states with corporate authoritarianism there is a multi-party system, but these parties cannot play a significant role in political life because of the apathy of society towards them.

This type of political regime became most widespread in Latin American countries, in particular in Guatemala, Nicaragua (until 1979), and Cuba during the reign of Batista. There were also examples of corporate authoritarianism in Europe. This regime manifested itself most clearly in Portugal during the reign of Salazar and in Spain during the dictatorship of Franco.

Post-totalitarian regimes

This is a special type of authoritarian regimes, which is formed in societies moving along the path from totalitarianism to democracy. At the same time, the phase of authoritarianism is not at all obligatory on this road, but it is inevitable in those former totalitarian countries where it was not possible to quickly build a full-fledged democratic society.

Post-totalitarian regimes are characterized by the concentration of significant economic assets in the hands of representatives of the former party nomenklatura and people close to them, as well as the military elite. Thus, they turn into an oligarchy.

Postcolonial regimes

Like post-totalitarian regimes, in many post-colonial countries authoritarianism is a phase on the road to democracy. True, often the development of these states stops at this stage for many decades. As a rule, this form of power is established in countries with a poorly developed economy and an imperfect political system.

Socialist authoritarianism

This type of authoritarianism is manifested in the peculiarities of the development of socialist society in individual countries of the world. It is formed on the basis of a special perception of socialism within these states, which has nothing in common with the so-called European socialism or real social democracy.

In states with a similar form of government, there is a one-party system and there is no legal opposition. Often, countries with socialist authoritarianism have a fairly strong leadership role. In addition, quite often socialism is combined with nationalism in a mild form.

Among modern countries, socialist authoritarianism is most pronounced in Venezuela, Mozambique, Guinea, and Tanzania.

general characteristics

As you can see, an authoritarian regime is a rather ambiguous form of government with no clear boundaries to define. Its place on the political map lies between the democratic and totalitarian systems. The general characteristic of an authoritarian regime can be sounded as a compromise between these two regimes.

Under an authoritarian regime, some freedoms are allowed in relation to members of society, but as long as they do not threaten the ruling elite. As soon as a threat begins to emanate from a particular force, political repression is applied against it. But, unlike a totalitarian society, these repressions are not massive, but are applied selectively and narrowly.

Main features of authoritarian regimes

1. The essence of the authoritarian regime and its main features

The importance of analyzing authoritarian regimes is already due to the fact that most of humanity is still content with this particular type of political system. What is so attractive about the world of authoritarianism? What are its prospects and the foundations of stability? What distinguishes and what unites different types of authoritarian political systems?

The term "authoritarianism", despite its prevalence, is not strictly defined. To a certain extent, the world of authoritarianism is much richer and more diverse than the world of democracy. This is evidenced by the experience of history and modernity. For if democratic systems, with all the differences among them, are united by the presence of a competitive election procedure, then authoritarian regimes cannot boast of anything that fundamentally unites them. According to S. Huntington's fair observation, the only thing that unites them is the absence of the election procedure characteristic of democracies. Other than that, they have very little in common. Nevertheless, the selection of authoritarian regimes seems to us methodologically important, because it allows us to draw a clear line between democracies and non-democracies, to separate two fundamentally different political universes from each other. Very often, authoritarian regimes are defined as rule by force. The meaning of such a government is to concentrate power in the hands of one or more leaders, without giving priority to achieving public agreement on the legitimacy of their power. Therefore, in its purest form, authoritarianism can almost always be identified with the use of instruments of coercion and violence. The army, the police, prisons and concentration camps are everyday "arguments" for the regime in proving both the steadfastness of its foundations and the validity of its claims to power. At the same time, it would be an exaggeration to say that all authoritarian regimes meet this definition. In reality, such regimes very often seek to use additional means of stabilization, relying, if possible, on the tradition and charisma of the leader. Moreover, historical experience convinces us that the values ​​of traditions, religious and cultural-regional are quite strong under conditions of authoritarianism. Spain under Franco, Portugal under Salazar, Argentina under Peron can serve as convincing proof of this. In this sense, authoritarianism should be distinguished from totalitarianism, which is, as it were, a continuation of the tendencies that exist under the conditions of an authoritarian regime - such a continuation that generates a completely new quality, a new kind of political regime with its own specific characteristics, institutions, principles of stabilization and exercise of power. Compared to totalitarian rule, authoritarianism is not free to exercise its power. Society retains institutions that pose a real threat to the regime: the family, clan, church, social class, urban and rural culture, social movements and associations. In other words, the society retains a rather powerful potential for the formation and activities of opposition political groups. Therefore, opposition to authoritarianism, as a rule, exists, although it differs significantly from oppositions in a democracy. What distinguishes the opposition in authoritarian and democratic conditions is the level of their tolerance for the ruling political group. The intolerance of the regime necessarily gives rise to an adequate reaction from the opposition - its main goal and meaning of activity is to eliminate the regime from the political scene. Naturally, the means chosen for this are by no means always legal and often come into conflict with what is officially recognized.

A good illustration of the differences between the three regimes - democracy, authoritarianism and totalitarianism - is a joke often used in comparative politics. According to this joke, which, of course, contains a considerable share of justice, the political systems of Great Britain, Spain and the Soviet Union in the 50s differed as follows. In Great Britain everything was allowed that was not forbidden (the principle of the rule of law), in Spain everything was forbidden that was not specifically allowed, and in the Soviet Union everything was forbidden, including what was officially considered permitted. If we consider Great Britain, Spain and the USSR, respectively, as examples of democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian political systems, then we will have a rather capacious comparison of the main features of the three types of regimes.

R. Makridis did a great deal of work on such a comparison and details. He traced how and through what mechanisms various regimes exercise their power in society (see diagram 1) Mucridis R.C. Modern Political Regimes. Pallerns and Institutions. Boston, Toronto, 1986. P. 15. .

Thus, we can single out the following characteristics that are universal for authoritarianism. All authoritarian regimes are distinguished by:

the desire to exclude political opposition (if any) from the process of articulating political positions and making decisions;

the desire to use force in resolving conflict situations and the lack of democratic mechanisms to control the exercise of power;

the desire to put under their control all potentially oppositional public institutions - family, traditions, interest groups, mass media and communications, etc.;

the relatively weak rootedness of power in society and the resulting desire and, at the same time, the inability of the regime to subordinate society to comprehensive control;

permanent, but most often not very effective search by the regime for new sources of power (traditions and charisma of the leader) and a new ideology capable of uniting the elite and society;

the relative closeness of the ruling elite, which is combined with the presence of disagreements within it and groups fighting for power.

All of the above was reflected in relief in the definition of authoritarianism given by X. Linz. According to this definition, authoritarian are “political systems that are characterized by limited, although not initiated from above, political pluralism, the absence of a developed and leading ideology in the presence, however, of a certain type of mentality, the absence of broad and intensive political mobilization, excluding certain periods of development. This - systems in which a leader or a narrow group exercises power within vaguely defined, but quite predictable boundaries.

Democracy and totalitarianism

Lately, there has been a fair amount of skepticism about the essence of Russian democracy. Firstly, it is unconstructive to consider modern Russia as a democratic state...

Information warfare as a targeted information impact of information systems

Information warfare is a term that has two meanings: 1) Impact on the civilian population and / or military personnel of another state by disseminating certain information ...

Public opinion

One can agree with Mussolini that totalitarianism was born at the beginning of the 20th century. Its main feature is that the ruling elite controls not only the political sphere, but all the main areas of life: economic, cultural, informational, family...

Political and legal systems in history, their formation, development and functioning

Many political scientists, reflecting on the issues of the emergence and existence of authoritarianism, single out the origins of this phenomenon, some reasons that do not explicitly cause the establishment of an authoritarian regime, but internal, lingering prerequisites...

Political thought in the Middle Ages

In the 16th - 17th centuries, significant changes took place in the economic and socio-political life of Western European countries, which were characterized by the process of initial accumulation of capital, the disintegration of feudal relations ...

Political regime

The affirmation of democracy and democratic social orders is now, in fact, the universal slogan of political parties and movements of any type...

Political regime

One of the first (in the 30s of the last century) introduced the term "totalitarianism" into scientific circulation, the German philosopher and political scientist K. Schmitt, and already before the start of the Second World War, a symposium was held in the United States that examined the phenomenon of a totalitarian state ...

Political regime

The name "totalitarianism" comes from the Latin totalis - whole, complete, whole. A totalitarian regime is characterized by the fact that all power is concentrated in the hands of any one group (usually a party) ...

Political consciousness

The leadership of various spheres of society under authoritarianism is not so total, there is no strictly organized control over the social and economic infrastructure of civil society, over production, trade unions ...

The role and place of political parties in the conditions of the functioning of authoritarian political regimes on the example of the modern Russian party system

In the second chapter, it is necessary to identify the essence of authoritarianism, determine the political regime of modern Russia and answer the question of what functions political parties perform under authoritarianism. It's necessary...

Comparison of neoconservatism and neoliberalism

The essence of political regimes

The most accepted classification of regimes is their division into democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian. Following partly the tradition, and partly the educational goals of this work, we will also build our presentation ...

Functions and mechanisms for the exercise of political power