Non-Democratic Regimes Theory, Government and Politic by Paul Brooker - Essay Example

Non-Democratic Regimes Theory, Government and Politic by Paul Brooker As per Hacker, (1961) political theory is a modern political behaviour and its scientific study (p. 11). Amongst all forms of Governance, democracy is the most reputed and widely accepted. “Moreover, due to their values and dependence on popular support, democratic regimes more often respond favorably to public demand on a continuing basis”. (Swain, and Chee, 2006, p. 97) There are some other governance machineries which are non-democratic in nature designated as authoritarianism, totalitarianism, communism and fascism. The objective of this book is to afford the people getting an idea of the entire theoretical as well as practical knowledge over non-democratic government. The writer has purposefully endeavoured to reveal a chronological discussion as regards the theoretical analysis of the evolution and development of non-democratic form of government, significances, failure, consequences and contribution in the development of political thought. Effort has also been made to compare democracy with those non-democratic regimes. The presentation of the book is well-organised; language usage is lucid and legible and comfort reading. The whole book has been covered by 10 chapters dealing with every issue of non-democratic regime. The subject matter of the book is easily accessible. Commendably, for the conveniences and better understanding of the readers, author has supplied relevant data, figures and tables which have made an impressive discussion. Anyone with a perusal can easily understand the contents of the book and identify the core purposes of the author inviting the readers to a thoughtful discussion in order to face the ground-reality through earning some practical knowledge. The 20th century has witnessed tremendous shifts in the governance portfolios. A large part of First half of the last century has experienced the advent of totalitarianism embodying fascism, Nazism and communism in German, Italy, Eastern Europe, Russia and China. In 1920s-1930s totalitarianism for the first time developed in Nazi German and Fascist Italy. With the growing popularity of communism, the concept was reintroduced in the western political thought in 1950s in Russia, Eastern Europe and even in China. The dominance and wider acceptance of totalitarianism regime in 1960s-1970s was more than democracy and seemed as if totalitarianism could be the predominant state philosophy in the coming days. The period between the end of Second World War and the opening of 1970 era is marked for military dictatorship. In many parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America military dictatorship was superseded by party dictatorship. But, the non-democratic regimes could not satisfy the demand of people and states had to face the difficulties in tackling mass disaffection. Military dictatorship faced peoples’ demonstration while communism lost the support as people had to lose their property. So, the demise of Dictatorship and upheaval of democracy is a turning point in 1980s-1990s decade. The wave of democratisation overthrew the prospects and upsurge of non-democratic regimes around the world. Over the 10 chapters, author has erected a conceptual framework and delivered a comprehensive discussion of non-democratic regimes, differences of non-democratic regimes with democracy and other relevant issues. In chapters 3 and 4, the author has supplied the theory, causes and consequences of non-democratic regime, party and military dictatorship, discussion about democracy in chapter 8 and 9 and the causes of the failure and termination of non-democratic regimes in the concluding chapter (Chapter 10). These chapters give a well-structured idea of non-democratic regimes and relation of them with democracy. The information and argument produced in this book is a scholarly attempt by the author in order to develop a practical global phenomenon. The book is in practical sense a well-researched work by the author. On a plain reading over the book, though it is seemed that the author is negatively biased toward dictatorship, in fact he has made some outlines and suggestions for all concerned to take masures for developing sound governance mechanism in all corners of the world.Non-democratic regimes tend to use top down decision-making approaches to public policy making at the pretext of modernity, economic growth, and national prestige which often ignores popular consensus and participation and any opposition from the public is overlooked or suppressed (Sugden & Keogh, 1990). The classical theories on non-democratic regimes devised during the 1950s and 1960s were based primarily on a distinction between totalitarianism and authoritarianism. (Hadenius and Teorell, 2006, pp. 1-2). An authoritarian state offers restricted freedom in favor of obedience to authority, and this authority itself exercised with few restrictions (Schapiro, 1972). According to Linz (1970), Authoritarianism has four main elements: the presence of limited and non responsible political pluralism; absence of elaborate and guiding ideology and instead distinctive mentalities; absence of intensive or extensive political mobilization throughout most of the regime history; and a leader (or a small group) which exercises power within poorly defined formal limits but nonetheless quite predictable ones. These regimes also try to penetrate society to establish control over political actors and social units at the local level, and extract resources from a largely agrarian economy. The belief in the muscle power, force and coercion encourages the authoritarian policy makers to accumulate more power with the help of each decision they make.Of course, in chi lie, the regime of Pinochet got a wider support from the people which strengthened the dictatorship in Africa. Dictatorships maintain institutions for systematic reasons: to mobilize cooperation and, if the opposition is threatening, also to thwart the danger of rebellion and put emphasis on some institutions like democratic government, i.e. parties, legislatures, elections. So, institutionalized dictatorships is considered as (i) partial democracies (Mahajan, 2005, p.796); or (ii) electoral authoritarianism (Schedler, 2002, p. 37). But, in true sense, dictatorship cannot be considered as democracy. Because, these are regimes which, in spite of holding elections, do not allow the opposition to take the power though people veto the dictatorship. The role of elections is to legitimize the regime, by providing it with democratic credentials. Fearon (2003) states that The Algerian military suspended the second round of elections in 1992 and dissolved the legislature after the Islamic Salvation Front seemed poised to win a majority of seats in the parliament. These are dictatorships, and dictators can always revert to the use of force (Brooker, 2000). Under democracy, the legislature is not sure as to the outcomes of bills. But, in dictatorship there is no scope of uncertainty. If the government wishes, they can pass any legislation unimpeded. The entire legislative functionaries depend upon the will of the dictator and if it is necessitated by the circumstances, may be reversed as per the dictation of the dictator. Authoritarian dictatorship includes both party and military dictatorship. Civilian or party dictators need more cooperation than military rulers and monarchs. To rule the country, to supervise the state bureaucracy, they must organise a political party or parties. In contrast, monarchs and military dictators can rely on pre-existing organisations (Gandhi and Przeworski, p. 29). As people are exploited and do not get the proper facilities from the state administration on the face of the repressive measures of dictators, rebellion often taken place. In this regard, Dictators adopt two instruments to mobilize cooperation and to prevent rebellion: policy concessions and distribution of rents. Since some people cooperate with the dictatorship; they get privileges, mobilization taken place and rebellion is protected. The dictator chooses policies for the distribution of rents. In such situation, if the opposition decides to rebel, dictator change the nature on the potential strength of the opposition to prevent rebel and keeping the regime intact. Authoritarian dictatorship also creates a privileged class for its protection and survival. This bureaucratic class became powerful in South America and rest of the world and was used to enforce powerful dictatorship. During 1950s and 1960s though African socialism demonstrated stronger force than Marxism-Leninism; ultimately, due to economic depression caused by resource constraints, vulnerable political conditions, inefficient and less capable manpower states faced a bitter reality and peoples’ demands and aspirations could not be properly addressed (Mahajan, 2005, p.1). Non-democratic regimes put a significant contribution in the development of politics and Government. The global political thought is still owed to non-democratic regimes for its growth and development. To date, many uprising states are taking lessons from the after-effects of non-democratic regimes to develop democratic regimes in their respective countries. Virtually speaking, it is equally important for the students of history, comparative politics and other disciplines connected to the study of political thoughts and governance issues as well as for the academicians and policy makers. The political mobilization in global context is a frequent phenomenon. It is quite tough to rightly apprehend the global political transformation as dominant regime like totalitarianism did not last long and a wave of democratisation got wider recognition over the nations. These days, democracy deserves much popularity; but, any deficiency within the existing mechanism may repeat the history as it were in case of totalitarianism. If it is necessitated by the circumstances, poloitical thinkers should reconsider the issue of reforming and remodelling the existing democratic regime right now. In this connection, the present book can be an effective means as it would widely facilitate the readers in achieving a thorough knowledge for the comparative analysis between non-democratic regimes and democracy and determining the prospects of non-democratic regimes in the upcoming days. Bibliography/References Brooker, Paul. (2000). Non-Democratic Regimes Theory, Government and Politics (Comparative Government & Politics). London: Macmillan Press Ltd. 2000. Cited in Gandhi and Przeworski (2006). “Cooperation, Cooptation, and Rebellion under Dictatorships,” Economics and Politics. Vol. 18. No. 1. 1-41. Retrieved 24/01/2008 from http://as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/2800/ep_2006.pdf Fearon, J. (2003). "Ethnic structure and cultural diversity by country", Journal of Economic Growth, Vol. 8 No.2, 195-222. Gandhi and Przeworski (2006). “Cooperation, Cooptation, and Rebellion under Dictatorships,” Economics and Politics. Vol. 18. No. 1. 1-41. Retrieved 24/01/2008 from http://as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/2800/ep_2006.pdf Hacker, Andrew. (1961). Political Theory: Philosophy, Ideology, Science. New York, Macmillan 1961. Hadenius, Axel. and Teorell, Jan. (2006). Authoritarian Regimes: Stability, Change, and Pathways to Democracy, 1972–2003. November Working Paper #331. 1-39. Retrieved 24/01/2008 from http://kellogg.nd.edu/publications/workingpapers/WPS/331.pdf (2007-12-12) Linz, Juan J. (1970). "An Authoritarian Regime: The Case of Spain." In Mass Politics: Studies in Political Sociology, edited by Erik Allardt and Stein Rokkan. New York: Free Press, 1970. Mahajan, D. V. (2005). Political Theory (Principles of Political Science). 4th ed. New Delhi. S. Chand & Company Ltd. Schapiro, L. (1972). Totalitarianism. London: Pall Mall. Cited in Swain, Ashok. and Chee , M. Ang. Political Structure and ‘Dam’ Conflicts: Comparing Cases in Southeast Asia. World Water Forum, 97-114. Retrieved 25/01/2008 from http://www.watercouncil.org/.../Proceedings_Water_Politics/proceedings_waterpol_pp.95-114.pdf. Schedler, A. (2002). "Elections without democracy: the Menu of Manipulation", Journal of Democracy, Vol. 13 No.2, 36-50. Sugden, D. & Keogh, J (1990). Problems in Movement Skill Development. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. Cited in Swain, Ashok. and Chee , M. Ang. Political Structure and ‘Dam’ Conflicts: Comparing Cases in Southeast Asia. World Water Forum, 97-114. Retrieved 25/01/2008 from http://www.watercouncil.org/.../Proceedings_Water_Politics/proceedings_waterpol_pp.95-114.pdf. Swain, Ashok. and Chee, M. Ang. (2006) Political Structure and ‘Dam’ Conflicts: Comparing Cases in Southeast Asia. World Water Forum, 97-114. Retrieved 25/01/2008 from http://www.watercouncil.org/.../Proceedings_Water_Politics/proceedings_waterpol_pp.95-114.pdf. Read More