20 Authoritarian State

Dr. Kanwalpreet

Introduction

A state is an entity, as we have read in our graduation, that has population fixed territory, government and sovereignty. The last, sovereignty, is that one characteristic that gives an identity to the state and helps it to emerge from a colony, a unit of another state to a full-fledged state. We further classify the stats as liberal, monarchies, communes etc. on the basis of their ideology, functioning and structures. Though democracy is the most accepted and trusted form of government, yet practical politics lead to the formation of different combinations. As new issues and new leaders arise in different countries so do new and different regimes. The tussle between individual’s sphere and the sphere of state has always existed and is the subject matter of political science. The individual wants to enlarge his/her sphere of rights while state wants to exercise restraint on the individual and curtail the individual’s rights. Democracy is one form of government that guarantees equality, liberty and justice to every citizen. But the path of democracy is shown with obstacles. But, fortunately, democracy and its mentee always seem to emerge victorious in some countries, albeit a little late.

People around the world have long been convinced about the over-whelming merits of democracy. But there are leaders, who emerge from time to time, and subreat the process of democracy. The state then becomes authoritarian and believes in ruling by force, even against the wall of the people.

What is an authoritarian state? It is a state in which the consent of the people is not taken into account. It does not have legitimacy and it is not a government from below, from the people. ‘Authoritarianism is a belief in, or the practice of government ‘from above’, in which political rule is imposed upon society, regardless of its consent’.1 Authoritarian governments have existed since centuries, much before the constitutional or democratic societies. Rule by the monarchs or the aristocrats was the norm till democracy took over as the most viable, convenient and acceptable form of government. Of course, there is ample proof that traits of authoritarian exist even in democracies irrespective whether a country is developed or underdeveloped. Authoritarianism means obedience that doesn’t doubt or question. It can also translate into extreme co-operation so that all kind of dissent is either hidden or wiped away. Authoritarian is as much a sociological term as it is psychological. Talking about democracies, the streak of authoritarianism runs deep in such societies. ‘However, the stark authoritarianism/democratic distinction is often misleading because authoritarianism traits can be identified in democratic regimes. Examples of this include the McCarthyite ‘witch hunts‘of the 1950’s in the USA and Thatcherism in the UK, whose combination of neo-liberal economies and neo-conservative social policies has been intensified as a form of ‘authoritarianism populism’ (Hall and Jackques, 1983).2 In the developing countries, the transition from colonies to states has passed through many phases. Accompanied by a unique set of problems, each colony-turned state has deliberately chosen ‘democracy’ as a form of government. In such countries, democracy has doubted to be a very successful experiment in some countries has proved to be a very successful experiment in some countries, but in a few the efforts continue. In some states, there have been bouts of authoritarian as well as totalitarian regimes. An authoritarian state is different from a totalitarian regime because the latter tried to exert its control on all spheres, social, political as well as economic. However, authoritarianism is usually distinguished from totalitarianism, on the grounds, that it is primarily concerned with the repression of opposition and political liberty, rather than with the more radical goal of obliterating the distinction between the state and civil society. Authoritarian regimes may, therefore, tolerate a significant range of economic, religious and other freedoms’.3

Totalitarian state is the extreme form of authoritarianism. Force is the driving term to suppress and eliminate dissent. “Totalitarian states are expert users of the ‘carrot-stick’ technique”.4 Totalitarian regimes are variety these days and most non-democratic countries are authoritarian. In an authoritarian-regime there is no expiry date. The ruler continues till he can continue with an iron grip alongwith manipulation, control over the media and distributing resources through the patronage system. Usually it becomes a one-man show. The alliances are referred and new ones are made every day to balance power. Corruption becomes a norm and this leads to a race for power and pelf between individuals as well as vested groups. Ear is the underlying feeling, fear instilled in the minds of people through the arrest and torture by the secret police, public executions, censorship[p and complete control on opposition of any kind. Total obedience is exploited. Totalitarianism believes in intensive and extensive political mobilization.

The despots fill up their supporters. In the Dominican Republic, Rafael Tnyillo, ‘The Goat’ acquired power in 1930 through a military coup. He hailed form a poor family, he accumulated wealth.  His rule was brutal and made torture a way of life for the common citizen.

Children in school prayed for ‘God, Country and Trujillo’. He was finally assassinated in 1961.

Haiti is a classic example of a leader coming to power through elections and then becoming an authoritarian leader. Durabee also known as ‘Papa Doc’ came to power in 1957 but soon succumbed to ruthless power. He too amassed wealth. He created the brutal, Tontons Macountes who prayed on the population and they were not prevented. He died in 1971 and was succeeded by his son ‘Baby Doc’ who was as corrupt and brutal as his father.

In the authoritarian regimes, cynism, corruption and cronyism is a necessity to survive and rise in power. The case of the Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Bahrain are monarchies that are authoritarian. Power is held by a few leading families and decisions are taken by a Council. Many members of the ruling dynasty exercise authority. Unlike European countries, where inheritance is a right of the first born, in these states, the clan decides the successor. The ruling family (in Saudi Arabia) does not monopolise wealth. But, rather, leaves space for low-tier families. There is also some separation of political and religious authority. A tradition of consultation allows the royal family to incorporate other

families, as well as technical experts, within its ruling framework.5 Authoritarian regime deprives a large chunk of the population from participating in politics. The autogolpe ‘self-coup) is also another way to come to power in context to a military coup. President Vergas of Brazil, Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte (the nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte) in France, Fujimori in Peru, President Changez in Venezuela are examples. ‘Several of these countries seem to have evolved a new, more sophisticated version based upon a gradual or ‘creeping’ self-coup of a democratic disguise that uses a new variant of semi-competitive elections.6 Such regimes claim that they have the legitimate authority and are preparing the country for democracy. Claiming the right to rule, they hold elections but the elections are either semi-competitive or non-competitive at all. In these regimes information gathering, punishments of extreme level and extreme repression is a norm. ‘Terrorizing’ people and demanding total political loyalty is a necessity. The methods used by an authoritarian regime to control people are unique and innovative. They go to the extent of controlling the thinking process of the society.

An authoritarian regime does not have much patience for human rights, free and fair elections, liberty and equality. An authoritarian state that might be developmental in nature might not find many takers as the people desire their civil liberties. The authoritarian developers, usually, have the political will to help the economy grow so that the majority of the population could benefit. Planning for the long term, the emphasis to develop through a strong leadership rooted in an equally strong and a well-institutionalised party. Despite the well-meaning goals by such states, the people still demand popular participation and too from below. Their contention is that ‘….it is possible for a country to shed; it’s authoritarian past and make a transition to

democracy’.7

Authoritarian states are characterized by limited or no political pluralism and an appeal to the emotions, for e.g. An evil has to be combated, danger to the unity of the country, insurgency etc. Without elections, power is vague and indefinite and often keeps shifting according to exigency of the situation. In the traditional authoritarian regimes, power control maintained through the loyalty factor. In some countries we have the ‘Bureaucratic-military authoritarian regimes’ where the bureaucracy rationalize their control. The military authoritarian regimes are controlled by the army. In Africa, the racial democracies encourage certain racial, ethnic groups to enjoy full rights keeping the others away from the basic rights and even denying them the basic rights. In Latin America, the corporate authoritarian regimes, the states use corporate institutions to either co-opt or demobilize influential and powerful pressure groups. The personalitic authoritarian regimes, as in Pakistan under Gen. Zia-ul-Haq are characterized of control through coercion or through the patronage network. Ruler, institutions etc. are bent at the whim of the ruler. The same is found in Africa in a great variety. The populist authoritarian regime is led by a leader who appeals to any low key group that has long been denied power and dignity. Such groups are mobilized, used and firmly entrenched in power, knowing that these privileges would continue till the leader who led them, guided them is firmly in power. We have the example of Argentina and Egypt. The potential challenges are either eliminated or repressed. Power, in an authoritarian state is centralized. New issues are raised; lies can be concocted to remain in power. The leader is usually strong, charismatic and manipulative, akin to the status of a demi-God. Bureaucracy, armed forces are either given more powers and also kept in good humour. Opposition is there for namesake or doesn’t exist at all. A secret police usually stifles any kind of opposition and keeps a check on the society. As opposed to individualism or democracy authoritarianism is characterized by an indefinite political tenure of the regime. The ruler stays in power or long as he/she can maintain their control.

Authoritarian States in Asia

Asia is a conundrum of different forms of government with countries as similar and as dissimilar as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, China, Sri Lanka, Burma (Myanmar). Asia is indeed a laboratory where experiment in myriad forms of government are occurring every decade. ‘Nepal and Pakistan have been struggling to make a democratic transition away from their authoritarian pasts. A longtime democracy, India is struggling to cope with the vast social and political transformations wrought by fifty years of modernization’.8 Asia has to be studied because a big chunk of the population resides here and because of delinking colonialism a new world of affairs emerged. Rising nationalism was another element that led to a curious mixture of an urge for development but also permeated by a spirit of clinging to the old alongwith it the rising frustrations of the people led to a growing impatience, which has resulted in leaders not elected for the people coming forward to take charge of affairs. Authoritarian states, thus, became a reality in Asia. ‘Although the revolution for national independence in Asia has been largely won, the more deep rooted ‘revolution of rising expectations has just begun. Already it is threatening to become ‘the revolution of rising frustrations’.9 Pakistan, India’s immediate neighbor has periodic phases of authoritarian rule. Pakistan lost its top leaders very early who were also the founders of the country. Muhammad Ali Jinnah in September 1948 and Liaquat Ali Khan the first Prime Minister of Pakistan who was assassinated in October 1951. In Pakistan, there is disguised military rule. The bureaucracy and the military generals took over the reins of the government. Pakistan got its first Constitution in 1956 and by then, it goes to India’s credit that the latter had twice gone to the polls. The then President, Iskander Mirza suspended the 1956 Constitution while cancelling the elections which were scheduled for January 1959. He did all this with the support of the army. He also imposed martial law. But Iskinder Mirza was sent to exile within twenty days and General Mohammad Ayub Khan bestowed control of Pakistan. Fourteen years, there was rapid economic growth titled horribly in favour of the rich. He called ‘functional inequality a great incentive but the new urban classes were not happy with this argument. Ayub Khan was deposed by the ruling military in 1969 after protests continued for a long time. Elections were promised by the army. The elections were held on 7 December, 1970 in which the Awami League won which was centered in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). The government of Yahya Khan set aside the people’s verdict in the 1970 elections on March 1, 1971. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who’s Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) had secured the second position came to power with the support of the military. After a rule of six years that were marked by violence, bribery, chaos, the military intervened in July 1977 and martial law was imposed. The elections held in March 1977 in which Bhutto emerged victorious were not accepted by the people as the latter felt that the elections were rigged. General Zia-ul-Haq seized power in July 1977 and banned political parties and muzzled the press. Zia-ul-Haq pelted the PPP and the Pakistan National Alliance (henceforth PNA) against each other and widened his area of maneuvering. He kept promising elections while simultaneously extending his control over the economic, political and social spheres. The Supreme Court gave its verdict in Zia’s favour and thus, legalized the intervention of the military. Elections were indefinitely cancelled for Zia got the stamp of the Court. He took over the right to appoint and replace judges, struck down the constitutional convention of the provision of judicial review and censored the press. Favours over distributed and the ‘biradari’ (old, personalized, clan-based ties) took the place of interest groups. Benazir Bhutto, daughters of slain zulfikar Ali Bhutto, started the process of restoration of democracy but the elections in March 1985, gave Zia a clear verdict. “The Zia regime’s masterly social engineering had altered the face of the Pakistani political spectrum. Not only had the PPP’s population been appointed by candidates preferring to feather their nests by supporting the military regime but many of its members had participated in the elections in violation of party discipline’.10 Zia made the Parliament important by pushing many amendments through the Prime Minister and declared Pakistan to be an Islamic society. Zia’s death in a plane crash led to President Ghulam Ishaq Khan at the helm of affairs; Benazir Bhutto won the elections of November 1988 but were dismissed on August 6, 1990. Elections were again held on October 24, 1990 and Islamic Jamhoori Ittehad won led by Nawaz Sharif as the Prime Minister. Nawaz Sharif’s government was dismissed in April 1993 for President. Ghulam Ishaq Khan wanted to ensure his own success in the next presidential elections, scheduled for1993 and Nawaz Sharif was trying to break from being a dependent protégé of the military. The court restored Sharif to power but the tussle continued. Elections were held in October 1993 and Benazir Bhutto won by a slim majority. Her tenure was marked by corruption and collapse of the fiscal system. In the February 1997 elections, Nawaz Sharif emerged victorious. He tried to muzzle the press, the public, the judiciary and even the military. Taking the deteriorating law and order in mind, the armed forces put Sharif under house arrest on October 12, 1999. Gen. Pervez Musharraf assumed charge of martial law was imposed citing it as another path to democracy. He banned political rallies in March 2000. He issued oath of Judges Order No. 2000 under which judges had to take a fresh oath of office in which they would swear allegiance to the military. Musharraf appointed himself as President on June 20, 2001. Rocked by many controversies, Musharraf resigned in 2007. The suspension of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary was met with protests. He quit politics in 2008 but returned from his self-imposed exile in London to Pakistan to contest Presidency but was put under house-arrest. In a nutshell, we can say that ‘…the choices in Pakistan were not between democracy and authoritarian but between more or less authoritarianism’.11

Nepal had a monarchical form of government when King Mahendra ascended the theme in 1955. He by passed the Council of Ministers and recognised the bureaucracy to his advantage. The Constitution framed was pro-monarchy elections were held in February 1959 but the King dismissed the first popularly elected prime minister, B.P. Koirala in 1960. He officially banned political opposition. King Mahendra’s death in 1972 led to his son King Birendra organized the Back-to-the Village National Campaign (BYNC) controlled the local parties. People protested but voted for the King’s Panchayat system over multiparty system in 1980. The failure of political parties can be the explanation for this. The patronage system worked to the King’s favour. The Jan Andolan of 1990 challenged the monarch and Nepal became a constitutional monarchy. The army remained faithful to the King but the King gave many concessions like bi-cameral legislative, universal adult suffrage etc. King Gyanendra became the King after the mysterious assassination of his brother, King Birendra and his whole family. King Gyanendra came to the throne in 2001 and in February, 2005, he dismissed the government and declared a state of emergency as to quash the Maoists. He arrested The politicians and freedom of press was curbed. After large-scale protests in 2006 the King had to relinquish power.

In Burma, the authoritative state can be seen in practice. The Burmese armed forces has marginalized political opposition and rewritten the Constitution. It is exploiting the resources to distribute assets in favour of its officers. The Parliament is controlled by the military. While health and education are n a bad state, military officers are living in luxury. The authoritarian streak is only being upgraded by elections, The Rohingya Muslims are arbitrarily arrested and there is restriction on their movement. They are forced to work and their land is confiscated. Press is censored and any opposition is not welcomed. The principal opposition leaders, Aung Sen Sui Kyi was placed under house arrest for 20 years.

China is another state that qualifies to be an authoritarian state. There is no freedom of thought and action and people/political activists are jailed, purged, tortured and killed. The Tiananmen square massacre in 1989 is one example where dissent is just not tolerated. There is a choice between candidates but not between parties. Citizens only vote at the lower levels of government and not for the higher echelons of the government. The elite in the Party, which is in control is not answerable to the people and rules arbitrarily. There is no private property and no liberties for the people. The control on the press is total and the government owes no explanation to the people. The Party dominates the state as well as the society. The legislature is controlled by the Communist Party. The judiciary is also under the control of the Party. Rule of law doesn’t figure in the scheme of the Communist Party. The federal system and multi-party system do not suit China’s only party – The Communist Party of China.

The authoritarian state has a deliberate effort to increase economic growth and do not stress economic and social rights. The party does not lend itself to scrutiny by the public or by any other opposition party. The Third World offers a lot of scope for emergence of authoritarian regimes. ‘Perhaps the chief characteristic of Third World power systems of the relative lack of power anywhere in the system. Coercion, force and authoritarian rule are all present in abundance, but power is a genuinely scarce commodity.12 In all these countries, press freedom is rare, the legislatures are rubber-stamp and there are a few checks on the executive. The leaders try to accumulate more authority. This leads to new situations.

Turkmenistan became an independent country in 1991 after the break-up (collapse) of the USSR. With no history of a multi-party system, free process or political pluralism, the country had no practical experience in democracy. It adopted a new Constitution in 1992 with rights for the citizens but there was no guarantor for its effective enforcement. Many of the constitutional provisions are under the legislature as well as the President. The President has the power to dissolve the Parliament, appoint the chairman of the supreme court and he heads the Council of Ministers whom he appoints without parliamentary supervision. President Saparmurat Nyazov organized two unique bodies, the Council of Elders and the Halk Maslalkaty, All the members are appointed by the President and by forming these two bodies, he institutionalized the traditional culture of the Turk people-respect for elders and authority. President Niyazov’s personal rule bypasses the legislature. He sidelined all opposition and ruled by decrees called normative acts. A virtual one-man dictatorship, elections were a farce and all opposition was suppressed. Appointed President for life in 1999, he died in December 2006; his authoritarian rule was also dotted with accentrices. From putting his revolving gold statue on a building so that the former would always face the sun, to renaming the months of the year after his family, from ordering a ban on public smoking after he himself had to stop smoking after his major heart surgery in 1997 and detaining dissidents in psychiatric hospitals, he did it all. His book, Rukhnama (Book of the soul) was taught in schools.

The examples of authoritative rule in Asia are many, Thanom Kittikachom in Thailand, the Kim family in North Korea, NgoDinh Diemin, South Vietnam, Maj. Gen. President Chung-hee in South Korea, Ferdinand Marcos in Philippines and Islam Kanimov in Uzbekistan. All these rulers brushed aside the will of the people and ruled arbitrarily. They bent all rules and made new that suited them. These pockets of arbitrary rule were an eye-zone for the advocates of democrats everywhere.

Presidential monarchy has another word ‘coined in 1960’s to describe the tendency and Third World personal dictators to institutionalize their personal rule in the monarchical post of President of the republic.13 In these countries, the dictator do not quote ‘might is right’ another tall convener the people that the leaders are there to lead them to a higher goal. They tell the people about the leader being a visionary or would quote the ‘divine hand’ etc. to retain power. Elections are promised but are postponed indefinitely till the society is peaceful and calm, according to the dictator. The right conditions just do not dawn and the authoritarian regime continues till the leads/dictator dies in harness or is overthrown by another.

In Latin America Fidel Castro in Cuba has been in power since January 1, 1959. Thousands have been detained and an equally number has been tilled by the firing squads. Arbitrary arrests are the norm. Raul Castro, brother of Fidel Castro, who is power now, when power was appointed by the latter to the former continues with the iron hold.

In Bolivia, the Nationalistic Party, National Revolutionary Movement (NMR) has won elections as far as December1943. But the military did not let them succeed. Their leader, Mayor Gualberto Villaroal was lynched in 1946. The story was repeated in the 1951 presidential elections when NMR win but were prevented from taking office by the military junta. Bolivia’s water in 2001 led to a civil war. President Evo Morelas election in the 2005 presidency election and is trying to redress Bolivia’s problems and is keeping the military junta away. The civil war led to a lot of losses and the armed forces with a small elite hoarded wealth.

Augusto Pinochet in Chile suspended political activities in the country. People were killed or they just disappeared. The secret police, DINA followed people, killing them even in other countries. Dissent or protests were just not allowed. His ‘Caravans of Death’ went from one town to the other killing opponents and crushing his enemies. Political parties were not allowed to exit and elections were a farce.

In Venezuela, President Chavez concentrated power after a coup in 2002. He eroded the power of the press, the journalists and the Supreme court that converted of 20 judges with 12 more seats, with his own supporters. Separation of power was relegated to the background and suspended all the media. He expelled all the representatives of Human Right Agencies. He supported all the dictators in the world like Basjar-al-Asad of Syria, Myanmar Gaddafi of Libya and bestowed Venezuela’s highest official honour, ‘Order of the Liberators’ on them. His closest ally was Cuba that itself had suppressed all political dissent. For him, Fidel Castro was his model and mentor. Venezuela withdrew from the American Convention on Human Rights in September 2012 leaving the Venezuelian citizens with no place where they would redress their grievances. Judges and Human Rights defenders were sent to prisons if they supported any thread of democracy.

The story in the African continent too is similar with many countries ruled by authoritarian leader or leaders. Africa got its independence from the Pretoria regime after years of struggle. Their leader, Nelson Mandela of the African National Congress spent 27 years in prison in protest against the Apartheid regime. The Africans, the native population, was pushed into ‘ghettos’, in which they lived in abject poverty with frequent break of life-taking diseases. They needed permits and identity cards to visit the white settlements where they were employed to do menial work. If they were found without the identity card, they were punished. It took an intense struggle to end the authoritative rule of the whites, the small elite that denied the basic freedoms to the indigenous population.

Egypt was ruled for 60 years by dictator ruled by their own whims and fancies. President Nasser whisked away his opponents through the secret policies. His successor Anwar Sadat stifled opposition everywhere, including the Universities. For the dissent to be suppressed in the universities he passed the University Law of 1989. Anwar Sadat was succeeded by Hosni Mubarak, the latter being tried presently. Hosni Mubarak imposed ‘emergency law’ to detain anybody. Elections were a mere formality and the police became brutal in using its powers over dissidents.

Charles Taylor, the 22nd President of Liberia who ruled till 2003, denied basic rights to the people. Using children below the age of 15’ as ‘Child-soldiers’, he committed atrocities on the population. Press was muzzled and journalists were beaten up. No criticism of Taylor was allowed on any platform.

Equatorial Guinea’s President Mbasogo, believes in an arbitrary rule. Repression of journalists, even foreigners, is a norm. Opposition does not exist for it has been eliminated. Muhammad Gaddafi of Libya is a dictator, who ruled his country from 1969 to 2011 when he was overthrown. He made a public drama by hanging his opponents. His personal Revolutionary Guard crushed opposition. He publicly said that his opponents would be killed anywhere, even when they were at Mecca. His secret police followed his critics in different countries and assassinated them. Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe violates rule of law. There are no freedoms as liberties available to the people. He believed that his opponents needed to be beaten up and then practically followed his words. His, youth militia’ keeps his opponents repressed. President Bassharal-Asad in Syria gave the security forces sweeping powers to detain any opponent. Deaths in custody were reported.

Conclusion

‘Constitution for power among the traditional authoritarian institutions (monarchy and church), the emerging centres of power (bourgeoisie) and the increasingly mobilized working class makes power-sharing essential for the continued best method of achieving the goal’.14 There can be no peace in Asia, Africa and Latin America if the lives of the people are not improved which today is characterized by poverty, disease, malnutrition, low living standards among others. The prevalence of these factors prompts individuals, the military and other such institutions to assume power. These all factors are also impediments in the path of democracy. ‘The comparative frequency of military interventions in politics in the Third World reflects the continuing inability of civilian, constitutional regimes to break through the harness of syncrate, politics and to master the industrialized process’.15 The mayhem prevalent in every country which is newly independent needs ample time and political will to be controlled. Work needs to be done on many fronts then only authoritarian regimes can be kept at bay. ‘Unconsolidated states such as Pakistan scarcely ____the opportunity to construct a democracy free from pressures of time.16

Any excuse to arrest people, the most common being, ‘Weakening the morale of the nation’. Freedom of speech, assembly and all other rights were suspended indefinitely. The effect of the authoritarian regime is to limit the participation of the people and not encourage rides participation. The authoritarian rulers have certain rules that are followed quietly. They work in a way that they can manipulate the influential people either to keep quiet or side with them. They maintain a strong army and are willing to use it. The army and the police then becomes a lucrative profession and the military and the political spheres are juxtaposed. The patronage network is strong and favours are liberally distributed. ‘Since non-democratic leaders stand above the law, the constitutional architecture (if any) is a poor guide. Laws are vague and contradictory, creating a pretext for bringing any chosen troublemakers to court. Special courts, such as military tribunals are often used for sensitive cases. Parliament and the judiciary are under-resources, unprofessional and ineffective. Civil rights are poorly respected and the state often requires private organizations to be licensed. The absence of constitutional constraint leads to callous treatment of the powerless, including minority groups, non-nationals, persons and women.17 Media is also under the control of the rulers.

The exercises for an authoritarian rule are many. Gen. Ayub in Pakistan had talked about basic democracy, Gen. Zia gave the excuse of a party-less democracy, Mrs. Indira Gandhi argued about democracy in danger.

The emergency in India from 1975 to 1977 is a blot in India’s record as the world’s largest democracy. During the tie emergency was in forced, the opposition leaders were arrested Bertch, Clark, Wood, Comparing Political Systems: Power and :Policy in Three Worlds, 1978, John Wiley and Sons, p. 437. under Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA). There were reports about forcible sterilization of men. The then Prime Minister, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, gagged the press and intimidated journalists, Yet, the spirit of democracy won and she was defeated in the elections held soon after the Emergency was uplifted. It is rightly said that authoritative streaks exit in every form of government, it may be democracy. This leads us to conclude that an Authoritarian state aims to strike at the basic political structure of any democratic society. It doesn’t believe in feedback as for the opinion of the people. Rule of law doesn’t exist in such states and what matters is control by force, coercion or manipulation, or at sometimes a heady mixture of all the three. An authoritarian state, in any form, is not welcome in any part of the world.

‘The motion of dictatorship was nothing new and could not be traced back to ancient Rome’s invention of the post of ‘Dictator’ which enabled the Roman republic in an emergency to appoint someone to act as a temporary monarch – like rules with extraordinary projects but without the monarch’s ceremonial trappings of wearing a crown, silting in a throne, and enjoying the (pouring and scrapping of country rituals.18 The military as an organization was always been the older player to set up authoritarian regimes. The army generals are kept happy by being included In the Council of Ministers or by using given a free hand in defence deals. They are encouraged to lead luxurious lives with a major say in policy-formation. In the twentieth century, the one party rule has been prevalent’. The Communist Party in the defunct USSR and presently in China are examples, The safest way to draw conclusions about the past and future of authoritarian regimes is to present two different perspectives: (1) the extinction interpretation and

(2) the evolution interpretation. The extinction interpretation would argue that authoritarian regimes are political dinosaurs in a world whose political climate clearly favour democracy’.19 It means that authoritarian regimes have become extinct like the dinosaurs which could not withstand the changing conditions and climate. The evolution interpretation can mean two things.

One that ‘…the continuing survival of some reptile species, such as the crocodiles, that seem more primitive’ then the dinosaurs and certainly evolved before or during the age of dinosaurs20 Their survival suggests that they adapt themselves to the changing conditions. ‘….the evolution interpretation would point out the supposedly extinct dinosaurs have actually

survived and indeed flourished by evolving into a very different group of species – the birds – which lack the fearsome appearance of a raptor or a tyrannosaurs for and have produced such a attractive species as the wise old owl and the beautiful peacock. Similarly, the authoritarian regimes may well survive and even flourish in the twenty-first century through a process of continuous evolution.21 We can conclude that though the world is open to democracy as a form of government but there are, unfortunately, pockets in the world, especially in Asia, Africa and Latin America and Latin America, where authoritarian regimes still exist and thrive quoting some ideology or claiming to exercise some legal authority or claiming, some religious legitimacy. The excused may be lame but the control of the total society.

Suggested Readings

• Bertsche, Gary K., Clark, Robert P., Wood David, M., Comparing Political Systems: Power and Policy in Three Wolds, 1978, John Wiley and Sons.
• Bhadur, Kalini, and Uma Singh (eds.), Pakistan’s Transition to Democracy, Joint Study of Indian and Pakistani Schools, 1989, South Asia Books, New Delhi.
• Brass, Paul. The New Cambridge History of India, Vol. (rev.). The Politics of India since Independence, 1994, Cambridge University Press, New York.
• Brown, Louis T., The Challenge to Democracy in Nepal: A Political History, 1996, Routledge, London.
• Caramani, David, Comparative Politics, 2011, Oxford University Press.
• Chadda, Maya, Building Democracy in South Asia India, Nepal, Pakistan, 2000, Vistaar, New Delhi.
• Hague, Rod, Martin Harrop, Comparative Government and Politics, An Introduction, 2015, Palgrave Macmillan, Replika, New Delhi.
• Jayal, Niraja Gopal, Mehta, Pratap Basu, The Oxford Comparison to Politics in India, 2015, Oxford University Press.
• Palmer, Norman D., Perkins, Howard C., International Relations, The Word Community in Transition, 1997, A.I.T.B.S., New Delhi.
• Weiner, Myron, The Indian Paradox, 1989, New York.