Are Authoritarian Governments More Efficient Than Democracies - Article Example

ITARIAN AND DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT Introduction An itarian government is one that characterizes political systems through four qualities. The qualities are a limited type of government, irresponsible government and, political pluralism. In addition, authoritarian governments form a basis of emotional legitimacy by identifying the government as a vital evil used to fight recognizable problems of the society such as insurgency or under development (Beckert 324). On a different basis, a democratic government includes a type of government that vests supreme power in people and entitles them to exercise the power indirectly or directly through representation that involves periodical free elections. A democratic government constitutes four main elements. Firstly, a political system used to choose and replace the government by conducting fair and free elections. Secondly, the recurrent participation of individuals in civic life and politics. Thirdly, human rights protection to all citizens, and finally a law that accords the procedures and laws equally to citizens. Authoritarian governments are not efficient. Rather, democratic governments are not only efficient but also applicable since they incorporate people’s voice in the administration, through their representatives (Menocal 202). There exist different typed of authoritarian governments. There exist several sub-types and types of authoritarian forms of government. The two primary subtypes are bureaucratic -military regimes and traditional regimes. Traditional regimes include those that provides for the maintenance of the ruling person or body in power through appeals to repression, patron-client links, and traditional legitimacy. An apparatus that is subject to the ruling body through loyal personalities executes the appeals (Call 1499). On the other hand, technocrats and military officers’ coalition who exercise pragmatic acts rather than ideological ones, within limits of a bureaucratic mentality that they possess, rule bureaucratic-military regimes. In addition to the two types of authoritarian regimes, other subtypes include organic statistic or corporatist regimes, post totalitarian regimes, and ethnic and racial democracy. The various types of authoritarian forms of administration prove inefficiency in various ways (Thies 451-465). On the other hand, there exist different types of democratic systems of government. A democratic system of government has into inclusion several forms of governments, in terms of practice and theory. Some democracy varieties give more freedom and better representation for their respective citizens as compared to others. However, if a democracy is inadequately structured in terms of totally restricting a government from not including its citizens in the legislative process, or the government branches from executing an alteration concerning separation of power in its favour, then the system’s branch can accumulate excess power and outdo the democracy (Menocal 202). Firstly, in a representative form of democracy, people are given an opportunity to vote for their representatives, who afterwards vote on initiatives of policies (Thies 451-465). Secondly, a direct form of democracy allows citizens to participate in decision-making. In a direct from of democracy, the voting population is given power to change the laws of the constitution and to forward suggestions, referendums, and initiatives for laws. In addition, a direct from of democracy gives binding instructions to elective professionals that include revoking the officials before the end of their term of service, or initiate a lawsuit to service any breakages o the Campaign promises. Authoritarian forms of government governments constitute several features that contribute to their inefficiencies. Despite some few cases of successful authoritarian states, democracies are witnessed to be more efficient and successful. On the contrary, authoritarian governments end up being inefficient and unsuccessful due to several features that encompass their implementation. Firstly, the governments have single leaders or group of authorities possessing the ultimate political power (Sondrol 559). Laying beliefs in the authority and state supremacy over each organization in the society, authoritarian leaders make paramount and necessary policy decisions. Needs of the state are paramount, and individualism is widely encouraged only to an extent that the same benefits the country. In addition, an ideal form of authoritarianism lacks the unofficial and official limitations regarding its power. Therefore, the feature of an authoritarianism government that allows for a vest of total power and authority to a particular individual or group of individuals renders it not efficient. The decision of the leader or group of leaders is final, and subjects are not allowed to take part in decision-making (Beckert 324). Secondly, authoritarian governments are less efficient as compared to democratic governments, since the latter raise fewer concerns regarding ideologies. In a situation where authoritarian leaders gain power, the often develop sets of policy objectives such as resurrecting and improving the economy and doing away with corruption (Beckert 324). Furthermore, they possess a mentality concerning the aim of their leadership. Giving ideologies less and minimum attention, and possessing a mentality with respect the objectives of their leadership renders authoritarianism inefficient, the subject’s or the state’s ideologies as a whole are not met. Thirdly, authoritarian systems of government often emerge during social, economic, and political instabilities, and especially at the initial stage of an authoritarian regime, the authoritarian government may have public support (Call 1499). The stereotype regarding an authoritarian ruler as despised in a uniform manner by the population is hardly accurate. In a majority of systems of authoritarianism, however, if the authoritarian government fails in achieving its goals of policy, the public ends up withdrawing its initial support. In this context, authoritarianism is, therefore, inefficient, since it may create possibilities for political wars and tensions as a result of the public withdrawing from supporting the government. Despite the public’s unwillingness concerning the rule, the government at stake compels the latter to come into accordance with the authoritarian rule, and this may lead to disputes and war (Thies 451-465). Fourthly, due to the control of an authoritarian government over a state’s mechanism of repression, declining support is not a provision for translation into an antigovernment mobilization and popular unrest (Call 1499). Indeed, limiting the political participation of the mass results in inefficiency in governance. Authoritarian rulers prefer an apathetic population with respect to politics, with absolutely no desire for participation in political processes (Call 1499). Authoritarian governments strive towards developing the spirit of unwillingness to participation in political processes among people, by initiating a deep sense of division between government and society. In addition, the authoritarian rulers tend to violently repress dissent expressions if necessary and perceive individual and human rights as a subject of the government’s needs. Concern about the probable emergence of political potential opposition can turn out to be a kind of authoritarian leaders’ obsession, weakening their efficacy as rulers and the government’s policy performance. Loosing the effectiveness of their leadership is a great factor of inefficiency in government (Sondrol 559). A democratic government constitutes several features that contribute to its inefficiency. Firstly, the rule of law, legal equality, and political freedom are important features of democracy that are portrayed in every eligible citizen, thus rendering the citizen equal before the law and having an equal and fair access to the processes of legislature. For example, a representative democracy provides that every vote should have an equal weight, and that no unreasonable or inconveniencing restriction should apply to any individual who seeks to vie for a position in government (Menocal 202). In addition, a citizen’s freedom is secured and made legitimate by legitimised liberties and rights that are primarily protected by a constitution. Giving a right of vote to citizens and securing protection rights in case of any unreasonable restrictions exposes the citizens to a free and fair voting process, including the ones that are being voted for. Efficiency is greatly enhanced as compared to an authoritarian form of government, since every citizen is given a chance to take part in decision making of the country through voting or being voted for (Thies 451-465). Secondly, a democratic form of government is attached to three principles fundamentally. An upward control or sovereignty based on a lower authority level, social norms within which institutions and individuals put into consideration acceptable and vital acts that show reflection on the basic fundamental principles of political equality and upward control, and political equality (Call 1499). The three fundamental principles are paramount for the efficiency and effectiveness of the government of a state compared to an authoritarian form of government, since they allow for respect to citizens by their representatives, and for political equality in times of representation. A representative is also obligated to execute and practice sovereignty, which also dictates the efficiency of the government (Beckert 324) Thirdly, a democratic form of government encompasses vital elements that include political pluralism, human rights, right for petitioning elected representatives to redress grievances, civil liberties, civil .society elements outside a government, and the due process (Call 1499). Democracy, along with civil society institutions provides political and personal freedom to the represented. Provision of political and personal freedom to citizens, and the incorporation of the elements of democracy prove efficiency of a democratic state as compared to an authoritarian state, since the citizens will be free to execute different decisions (though not violating the provisions of the human rights) and forward whatever grievances to their representatives. On the contrary, in an authoritarian system of government, citizens are not provided with a platform to forward their grievances, since power and authority are centrally vested in the government. The government, therefore, makes and implements all decisions without any queries (Beckert 324). Fourthly, a democratic system of government allows for the sovereignty of parliament, while observing the maintenance of judicial independence. An example is the United States where central attribute is a consequent cite of separation of powers. In the case of India, sovereignty of the parliament is a subject of the Indian constitution, which includes a review of the judiciary. Separation of powers is an efficient pre-requisite in terms of administration, since it allows for the 3 government arms, (i.e. the executive, judiciary, and legislature) to exercise sovereignty in terms of decision-making. The judiciary, for example, includes the various types and levels of courts in a democratic country, and is independent of the legislature and executive (Menocal 202).The judiciary, therefore, has the power to penalize whoever violates the provisions of the constitution, including the top government officials. Separation of powers proves the efficiency of a democratic government as compared to an authoritarian one, since the former gives all the power and authority to the administrating group or individual. An individual possessing absolute power will manipulate his or her rule in accordance with his actions, provided that there exist no body to minimize and check the excesses of power by the individual. Fifthly, a democratic system of government allows for the rule of the majority. In addition, a representative democracy that is ideal allows for fair and competitive elections in both a procedural and a substantive way. Furthermore, freedom of press, speech, and political expression are taken into consideration in terms of essentiality in the rights that provide eligible citizens with an opportunity to access adequate information and ability to vote with regard to their own interests (Call 1499). The provisions and rules that ensure free and competitive elections prove the efficiency of a democratic system of government as compared to an authoritarian one, since the latter allows for an individual to make a choice concerning a representative or leader of the individuals own interest, and the concept of the ‘majority rules’ prevents disputes that may culminate into wars by the winning majority. In an authoritarian form of government, a group of persons will always rule regardless of the citizens’ consent, and this is not efficient since the citizens’ interests are not represented by the authoritarian leaders (Beckert 324). Several inefficiencies are caused by an authoritarian system of governance. Firstly, an authoritarian system of government increases the economic deterioration of a country, causing inefficiencies. An authoritarian government has a centralized form of administration, whereby the ruling body tends to strictly concentrate power within its sphere of administration and denies any other body access to power (Sondrol 559). Concentrating power centrally gives the ruling body an opportunity to control the economy of the country and directing the power to the minority, neglecting the majority. In addition, the rights of citizens in terms of accessing business opportunities and other state development professions are withheld and controlled by the minority due to lack of a constitution, thus contributing to the deterioration of the economy. Furthermore, in some authoritarian states, citizens are forced to pay tax to the government despite the former’s control of the well payed professions. Dispute and conflicts in an authoritarian form of government by the ruling body (the minority) and the majority may culminate in a revolution, thus a proof of an inefficiency of an authoritarian system of government. The revolution is as a result of excess power and control by the government over citizens, and the use of the military to exercise violent actions to individuals who are not willing to cooperate, or the opposing individuals. In other cases, the revolution would lead to a communism form of government, since the revolting group may succeed in overthrowing the authoritarian government. From a general view, conflict and wars will lead to inefficiencies in terms of destroying of property, and taking of people’s lives (Call 1499). An authoritarian system of government causes or interferes with the political development of a sate. A state that is developed politically has a government that establishes a peaceful relationship between it and the citizens (Beckert 324. In addition, a politically developed state creates a platform for taking care of any forwarded grievances by citizens, and has a constitution, which gives every individual a right to participate in the election process by voting or otherwise being voted for. An authoritarian form of government instead does not have a constitution that protects individuals’ rights and liberties, thus exposes the citizens to violation of their rights of participating in the decision making of the state (Menocal 202). Furthermore, a politically developed state embraces the concept of separation of powers, thus minimizing and checking the excesses of power by all government officials. An authoritarian government gives the ruling body absolute power with no checks or minimization of any excesses. The excesses of power create a tyrannical way of administration, since the subjects are compelled to follow the rules dictated by the ruler. An authoritarian form of government will lead to social underdevelopment of a country. On the contrary, a socially developed country establishes respect for the social sphere or society as a whole, through respecting individuals’ rights and observing various rights that protect the interests of the society, such as freedom of worshipping and entitlement in whatever religion of choice (Call 1499). On the contrary, an authoritarian form of government lacks a constitution and has neglected the societal rights. In addition, an authoritarian form of government neglects the observation of human rights of the society, and may end up execution murder acts to citizens or society. Moreover, an authoritarian form of government establishes or builds a negative relationship with the society as a majority, thus destroying peace relationships. Peace is a prime feature of the social development of a society (Beckert 324). In conclusion, authoritarian governments are not efficient, while, on the contrary, democratic governments are. Authoritarian forms of government have distinct features that characterize or explain their inefficiency. Some of the features include centralization of power to the minority rulers only, non-accomplishment of the expected goals by the society, and non-observation of the political ideologies. Democratic governments, on the other hand, constitute distinct features that contribute to their efficiencies, such as the constitution, separation of powers, the majority rule, and equality before the law, among others. In addition, democratic governments prove several inefficiencies such as conflicts, economic, political, and social deterioration. Works cited Beckert, Jen. Communitarianism. International Encyclopedia of Economic Sociology. London: Routledge, 2006. Call, Charles T. "The Fallacy of the Failed State." Third World Quarterly (2008): 1499. Menocal, Alina Rocha. State-building for peace’: navigating an arena of contradictions. London: Overseas Development Institute, 2009. Sondrol, P. C. "Totalitarian and Authoritarian Dictators: A Comparison of Fidel Castro and Alfredo Stroessne." Journal of Latin American Studies (2009): 559. Thies, C. G. "War, rivalry, and state building in Latin America." American Journal of Political Science (2005): 451-465. Read More