Authoritarian Regime Analysis
Internal reasons why Authoritarian Regimes may become unstable and breakdown
To understand which form of regimes are the most stable its important to look at certain factors that can destabilise the authoritarian regimes.
The article, ‘The breakdown of Authoritarian Regimes’, in the Journal ‘The Western Political Quarterly’ by Robert H. Dix , gives some keys reasons why authoritarian regimes breakdown and become unstable.
The first and most intuitive reason for regime breakdown is simply a lack of overall performance, especially when it come to the economy. Overall declines in economic growth, unemployment levels or even an all out economic collapse can put a lot of pressure on regime leaders. In regimes supported by a small collective …show more content…
The competition among rival factions, however, takes different forms in different kinds of authoritarian regimes and has different consequences. In her analysis of over 130 countries spanning a period of 70 years Geddes concluded that Military governments contain inherent sources of fragility that make them far less durable than other kinds of authoritarianism. Consequently, they last less long and are more easily destabilised than are other types of dictatorship.
She found that Personalist regimes lasted longer than military regimes but suffered collapse when faced with two situations: If leader dies or becomes quite ill that undermines repressive capacity centralised in his hands; or when a poor economy prevents the distribution of benefits and patronage to its support networks. Geddes concluded her findings by say that most stable form of authoritarian regimes were the one-party …show more content…
Different groups within the party have a common interest in monopolising power In addition, they have typically built up an elaborate system for rooting themselves, and thus controlling both the state apparatus and the larger society. In the more pronounced cases, the different branches of the state and the various areas of social activity have been strictly subordinated to the leadership of the party. This makes one-party regimes more resistant to opposition. They have access to a stronger organisation of supporters within the population, and at the same time they find it easier to control dissidents. This endows them with a longer life
To understand which form of regimes are the most stable its important to look at certain factors that can destabilise the authoritarian regimes.
The article, ‘The breakdown of Authoritarian Regimes’, in the Journal ‘The Western Political Quarterly’ by Robert H. Dix , gives some keys reasons why authoritarian regimes breakdown and become unstable.
The first and most intuitive reason for regime breakdown is simply a lack of overall performance, especially when it come to the economy. Overall declines in economic growth, unemployment levels or even an all out economic collapse can put a lot of pressure on regime leaders. In regimes supported by a small collective …show more content…
The competition among rival factions, however, takes different forms in different kinds of authoritarian regimes and has different consequences. In her analysis of over 130 countries spanning a period of 70 years Geddes concluded that Military governments contain inherent sources of fragility that make them far less durable than other kinds of authoritarianism. Consequently, they last less long and are more easily destabilised than are other types of dictatorship.
She found that Personalist regimes lasted longer than military regimes but suffered collapse when faced with two situations: If leader dies or becomes quite ill that undermines repressive capacity centralised in his hands; or when a poor economy prevents the distribution of benefits and patronage to its support networks. Geddes concluded her findings by say that most stable form of authoritarian regimes were the one-party …show more content…
Different groups within the party have a common interest in monopolising power In addition, they have typically built up an elaborate system for rooting themselves, and thus controlling both the state apparatus and the larger society. In the more pronounced cases, the different branches of the state and the various areas of social activity have been strictly subordinated to the leadership of the party. This makes one-party regimes more resistant to opposition. They have access to a stronger organisation of supporters within the population, and at the same time they find it easier to control dissidents. This endows them with a longer life