Mechanisms for retaining power by authoritarian regimes

This topic is not so much relevant and topical as general political, that is, based on general or somewhat extended knowledge of political science. Therefore, as far as it seems appropriate and possible, in the course of the story, for a better understanding and disclosure of the topic, we will give definitions to the terms used.

Before proceeding to the main topic, we should understand what power is and how it is exercised.

Robert Dahl defines power as "A has power over B to the extent that A can get B to do what B would not otherwise do."

A's power over is based on 2 things:

Authority, which in politics is called legitimacy. Legitimacy, according to Max Weber, is of three types:

Traditional - power based on the traditional ideas and beliefs of the people about power, quite often having a religious basis. Characteristic of the monarchies of the Middle Ages and the New Age - "power from God."

Charismatic - the idea that the leader has a certain talent and the personality itself is so great that it is a sin not to endow such with power regalia. It is typical for most dictatorships and authoritarian regimes.

Rational-legal - the government relies on the formalized rules of the game and acts within their framework. This kind of legitimacy is characteristic of most democracies. However, there are also examples of authoritarian regimes close to this type of legitimacy.

Authority, the belief that power is endowed with it, is what allows power to exist and be inherited by the next generations of elites. However, it alone is not enough for power to be exercised, since this belief can motivate inaction in relation to power and simply parallel life with it, except in cases of direct interactions with power (such as, for example, going to the MFC) or indirect (when you lead car somewhere in the city). It is in these smallest examples that the devil lies - you are motivated to act in one way or another in relationships with the authorities, because every action, especially in politics, has its own motivation.

Motivation. It relies on two basic feelings: fear and hope. Usually they are called "carrot and stick".

The problem is that in its pure form, power does not rely on any one of these feelings, preferring to combine them. This is the most successful strategy for any government, because “you can rely on a bayonet, but you can’t sit on a bayonet”, and the naked enthusiasm of hope is terrible for any bureaucracy, the basis of any state, and hence the power, since it is not controlled.

However, there is no balance anywhere, something usually outweighs yes. In the case of motivation, as a rule, hope prevails, since such is the property of a person: a mentally healthy person always hopes. That is why hope is easier to use - especially if the authorities have the resource for this.

One can compare the actions of the Lukashenka regime in Belarus and the Putin regime in Russia to strengthen power.

The first, almost immediately upon coming to power, began to clear the political field for himself, limiting the objectionable and facilitating the outflow of the disloyal population abroad.

The second mode retained "herbivory" longer compared to the first, as it initially had a larger resource for distributing buns. Repressions (including forcing those who disagree to emigrate) in Russia were of an exclusively targeted nature, in contrast to Lukashenka's actions. However, after the crisis of 2008, the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine and the imposition of sanctions, the Russian regime began to behave more aggressively towards those who disagree with its actions and more resemble the first case. We can say for sure that this change was associated primarily with a decrease in the resource for stimulating hope, therefore, in the absence of these, they switched to stimulation with fear.

Now, having finished with the general things, let's move on to authoritarian regimes.

Authoritarian regimes are most often understood as all non-democratic regimes. Therefore, defining what authoritarian regimes are, we will go from the opposite, first giving a definition to a democratic regime.

A democratic regime is a set of institutions in which power is exercised as a result of elite competition for votes in free and fair elections (Joseph Schumpeter).

Unlike democratic ones, in authoritarian regimes there may be no elections between the elites, or they may be unequal, since part of the elite uses the state apparatus to maintain its hegemony. Under authoritarian regimes, power is concentrated in the hands of one group of elites. The rest are either suppressed to such an extent that they are unable to claim power, or can do so in a very limited way.

Now let's compare the grounds and ways of holding power by different variations of an authoritarian regime.

Monarchic regime - power is based on traditional beliefs, the concept of the divinity of power, and its legitimacy comes from this idea. The most stable of possible authoritarian regimes, since, unlike others, it does not draw its legitimacy from the fickle masses and does not need emergency situations that other authoritarian regimes resort to to maintain power. In addition, there is no heir dilemma, characteristic of other variations of the authoritarian regime - everything is simple here, power is transferred to the eldest descendant of the ruling monarch.

This variation of the authoritarian regime now has one, but a significant problem: God, as an idea from which it is possible to draw legitimacy, died 2 centuries ago. Therefore, modern monarchies have two ways: to rely on democratic norms, that is, to start drawing legitimacy from the people themselves, or to rely on the charisma of a leader who can himself be a monarch or support the monarchy.

A military regime is a regime in which power is concentrated in the hands of the military. The condition for their coming to power is always a state of emergency, that is, a situation of "danger to the Fatherland." The power of the military is often the shortest of all authoritarian regimes. However, this regime is most prone to repression of unwanted and total bans. The military, by its nature, considers a ban to be the best solution to problems and, as a rule, does not have much confidence in politicians and other elite groups, nevertheless using the state bureaucracy they inherited without much change.

One-party systems - power is concentrated in the hands of one party. In general, this type of authoritarian regime is characterized by extraordinary flexibility and variability within itself. The first version of such a system is a situation where one party monopolizes political power, preventing the existence of any other parties and political organizations. The second case is when one party acts as a hegemonic one, and all the others, existing, do not have a chance to compete with it on an equal basis. Finally, the situation of a dominant party is possible, when the same party constantly receives an overwhelming majority of votes in parliament. That is, such different countries as Vietnam, where there is only one party, and the PRC, where all power belongs to the CCP, which is closely connected with state bodies and permeates the entire state system, can fall under this type of authoritarian regime, which makes competition with it unrealistic, however, with all this, there are other parties in the country. To the third option, a considerable number of researchers include Russia, where in the parliamentary elections the overwhelming majority of seats in parliament are held by United Russia, the ruling party.

This type of power comes, as a rule, after revolutionary changes, when the system hardens, and in its legitimacy often relies on a rational-legal, though not democratic, system. At the same time, references to the past and the authority of the “great leader” of the present or past, who stood at the origins of the party, are not uncommon. It is one of the most stable variants of an authoritarian regime today.

Modes of personal power - power is concentrated in the hands of a particular leader, who most often has a charismatic type of leadership and performs the functions of a leader. Such regimes often gain power as a result of a state of emergency, from which, as the elite tries to present it, only a leader, a leader, can bring them out. This type of authoritarian regime can be attributed to the regimes of Franco in Spain, Dollfuss in Austria and many others. In general, we can say that this type of authoritarian regime was most widespread (albeit, perhaps with some reservations) in the period between the two world wars. It often has very big problems with the transfer of power to the next generations, so it either changes to a democratic one, or becomes a one-party regime.

On this I think to end this note and summarize that authoritarian regimes are numerous and varied. They do not always rely solely on fear, but, however, they begin to give preference to it if the situation becomes more difficult for them. At the same time, most authoritarian regimes experience difficulties with the transfer of power to the next generations, which inspires moderate optimism, especially considering that Russia is balancing on the verge between one-party and personalist regimes, now approaching more the second option, which, I remind you, is rarely able to last for a long time.

Dialecal, member of the Moscow chapter of the Libertarian Party of Russia 2022-12-26