What Is Authoritarianism All about - Assignment Example

Discussion Questions: Authoritarianism Introduction Authoritarianism is a system of political organization marked with absolute submission to authority as opposed to the freedom of the individual and democracy[ CITATION Bog09 \l 1033 ]. Typically, in an authoritarian government, power is vested in a leader or a clique of leaders. More often than not, these leaders are not elected by the people and exercise excessive power without any checks and balances. This lack of accountability often leads to abuse of power. Authoritarianism and democracy are not necessarily opposed to each other. In fact, it is possible and acceptable for a democracy to have strong elements of authoritarianism. This position is justified in the paragraphs that follow. Question 1 Authoritarian methods of reaching decisions and accomplishing tasks entail the leader, either single-handedly or in conjunction with their inner circle, makes decisions then requires the people to implement those decisions[ CITATION Bog09 \l 1033 ]. At no point in time are their opinions and perspectives sought. In the event that they are reluctant to carry out the decisions, the leader often resorts to the use of force, effected through the police service, to compel the people to act. By contrast, democratic processes require the leader(s) to consult with other leaders and the people likely to be affected by a decision before reaching a decision. For instance, unlike an authoritarian government, if a democratic government wanted to amend the constitution of the country, they must seek the views and consent of the citizens of the country through a national referendum. Authoritarian methods are morally compatible with the tenets of democracy. In fact, one may argue that most democratic processes possess elements of authoritarianism[ CITATION Bog09 \l 1033 ]. Staying with the example of a national referendum above, the decision to hold the referendum may, in the first place, originate from the President sitting their Secretaries. Only then is the participation of the citizens sought through the referendum. In a corporate organization, the board of directors makes several decisions on the behalf of, and without necessarily consulting, the company’s stockholders who elected them into office. The tendency for democratic institutions to overlook the democratic tenet of participation is sometimes justified on the ground that participation is time-consuming. If everyone were to be consulted on every matter, nothing would happen at the end of the day. Question 2 Policies are general guidelines for accomplishing a task. They are used by governments and organizations, both profit and non-profit, around the world to accomplish governmental and organizational goals. A policy differs from the law in that while the former is suggestive, only proposing what should be done, the latter is prescriptive, stating what must or must not be done. It is assumed that in democratic settings, policies are arrived at after lengthy consultations with stakeholders through workshops, for instance[ CITATION Bog09 \l 1033 ]. However, if a policy is unpopular yet the government believes that it is necessary to promote the “public interest”, it may go ahead and enact the policy without the support of a majority of the population. For example, in order to curb rampant consumption of alcohol in a country where the majority of the people drink, a democratic government may decide to impose a policy to guide the manufacture, distribution, sale and consumption of alcohol without the support of the populace. The notion of "the public interest" is widely described as "the greatest benefit for the greatest majority". By this definition, if the enactment of a policy is going to benefit the majority of the population, then it is good and worth pursuing. It does not count how many people like or dislike it. However, this notion of "the public interest" is a problematic one. Often times, politicians have been accused of colluding with the social elite to pass policies that benefit them in one away or the other, while propagating it as being in the public interest[ CITATION Bog09 \l 1033 ]. Question 3 One of the premises of democracy is the observance of the "Bill of Rights"[ CITATION Bog09 \l 1033 ]. The Bill of Rights is a universally recognized collection of fundamental rights and freedoms enjoyable by every human being simply because they are a human being. These rights and freedoms are argued to be God-given. As such no State can purport to have the power to alienate them from the individual. One of the rights in the Bill is the freedom from arbitrary search and arrest by security agencies. For a person or their property to be searched, they must be notified in advance and a search warrant produced by an officer who seeks to conduct a search. In the opinion of the British security services, however, the IRA suspects posed a threat to public order and safety. It was on this basis they searched the homes of and arrested several suspects. Whereas it is proper to maintain public safety and order by stamping out criminal elements in society, for instance, the British security services were not justified to search the property of and arrest innocent people on pretext of promoting public safety and order. They needed to have investigated these people prior to arresting them. Otherwise, by ambushing them, they caused these innocent suspects inconveniences that cannot be covered up for by the need to ensure the safety of the people of Britain. In any case, these people whose lives the security services disrupted are British and need to be protected. Question 4 Certain security situations may justify the use of authoritarian methods by democratic governments[ CITATION Bog09 \l 1033 ]. These methods may include the arbitrary arrest of suspects. For instance, in the face of rising terrorism around the world, the government my need to act swiftly thwart acts of terrorism before they occur. However, in order to ensure that such a government does not permanently gravitate toward authoritarianism, certain checks and balances have to be provided [ CITATION Bog09 \l 1033 ]. One mechanism for preventing security agencies from engaging in excesses in the name of fighting terrorism is by enacting a law that requires them to gather sufficient evidence against a suspect before apprehending them. However, for the agencies to be effective, the law should exempt them from procedural bureaucracies. Otherwise, by the time they finish complying with lengthy procedures, the terrorists will have finished their business and moved on. Another watchdog mechanism is to have a vibrant human rights agency that closely monitors the activities of the security agencies. The agency should then release regular reports on the activities of the security agencies, paying closer attention to any tendencies to abuse the constitutional rights of terror suspects merely by virtue of their being suspects. The human rights agency should be empowered by law such that its recommendations to the security agencies are binding. At the same time, the law must provide remedial action against the security agencies should they decline to implement recommendations of the human rights watchdog. The efforts of the human rights agency could be complemented by the work civil society organizations involved in human rights. Conclusion Many advocates of democracy would frown at any authoritarian tendencies in a democratic society or organization[ CITATION Bog09 \l 1033 ]. However, not all authoritarian elements are bad. In fact, a healthy dose authoritarianism is necessary for the wheels of democracy to keep moving. Otherwise, if every member of society or organization were to be consulted on every little issue, it is unlikely that the democracy will move forward. Besides, the resulting scenario would be too costly and time-consuming to sustain. However, it is crucial that all authoritarian doses in a democracy be regulated. The checks can be effected through laws enacted by Parliament and arms-length institutions such a human rights body that exercise oversight over those arms of the government that are permitted to act authoritatively. Otherwise, the political system risks sliding into a full-scale authoritarianism. Reference CITATION Bog09 \l 1033 : , (Bogaards, 2009), Read More