Rubric for use in grading PSCI 3500 on-line assignments. ✓ Solved

How does this apply to Comparative Politics? Section 2, “The origins and sources of non-democratic rule” provides us a set of hypotheses we can test using the comparative method.

1. Defining Nondemocratic Rule: Nondemocracy is a system where a small group exercises power over the state without constitutionally responsible governance to the public. This system restricts individual freedoms, and the regime may be institutionalized and legitimate, commonly referred to as authoritarianism.

2. Origins of Nondemocratic Rule: Several explanations exist for why some governments become authoritarian, including modernization, entrenched elites, societal structures, international relations, and cultural factors.

3. Means of Control: Authoritarian leaders maintain political control using various methods such as coercion, co-optation, and personality cults, all aimed at discouraging opposition and consolidating power.

4. Models of Nondemocratic Rule: There are different forms of nondemocracy, including personal or monarchic rule, military rule, one-party rule, theocracy, and illiberal or hybrid regimes.

5. Summary: The concept of nondemocracy encompasses a range of governments, with explanations rooted in modernization, elite control, societal influence, international factors, and cultural contexts. Nondemocratic regimes use coercive measures and co-optation to sustain their power across various models.

Paper For Above Instructions

The study of nondemocratic regimes is essential in comparative politics as it helps illuminate the various dynamics that allow certain countries to maintain authoritarian governance despite the global trend towards democratization. Nondemocratic rule can be defined as a political system in which a small group of individuals hold significant power over the state, often without accountability to the public. This form of governance is characterized by restricted civil liberties, curtailment of individual freedoms, and a systematic absence of democratic processes (Diamond, 2020).

One significant aspect of nondemocratic rule is the role of political culture and historical context. For example, certain countries may be entrenched in what is termed a 'resource trap,' where an abundance of natural resources allows the government to thrive without requiring the consent of the governed (Ross, 2012). This phenomenon can lead to a lack of political participation and civic engagement as the government remains insulated from the demands of its citizens.

Furthermore, the concept of modernization plays a critical role in understanding the origins of nondemocratic rule. Modernization theory posits that as societies evolve, they often experience disruptions that can lead to authoritarianism. For instance, economic transitions, urbanization, and shifts in social values may create conditions ripe for authoritarian leaders to emerge, as seen in countries like Chile during the 1970s and contemporary situations in the Persian Gulf (Huntington, 1996).

Moreover, entrenched elites significantly affect the consolidation of nondemocratic regimes. Often, these elites resist the distribution of power among broader societal groups, fearing the loss of their privileges (Levitsky & Roberts, 2011). This dynamic cultivates an environment where the status quo is maintained, and citizens have limited avenues for influence or redress.

Societal structures also play a pivotal role in sustaining nondemocratic regimes. The lack of robust civil society organizations, whether due to co-optation by the state or repression, diminishes the public’s capacity to challenge oppressive governance (Pavlović, 2020). This absence of platforms for collective action supports the persistence of authoritarian leadership.

International relations further complicate this landscape. The geopolitical contexts often dictate the viability of nondemocratic regimes; for instance, foreign support or occupation can bolster such governments, as seen in post-World War II Eastern Europe under Soviet influence (Bermeo, 2016). This intertwining of internal and external factors reveals the complexity of governance in non-democratic states.

When examining the means of control employed by authoritarian regimes, coercion stands out as a primary tactic. Authoritarian leaders may utilize fear, both in targeted and indiscriminate ways, to suppress dissent (Teorell et al., 2012). Examples abound, such as the actions of the Chinese government during the Tiananmen Square protests, where the military employed brutal force to maintain order and prevent opposition (Zhao, 2020).

In conjunction with coercion, leaders may also resort to co-optation, providing selective benefits to key groups to maintain their loyalty and support (Eisenstadt, 2004). This strategic manipulation often involves creating state-sanctioned organizations that limit the formation of independent civil groups, effectively consolidating state power while appearing to accommodate public interests.

Another significant mechanism is the development of personality cults, where leaders are venerated and perceived as embodying national aspirations and identity. In North Korea, for example, the Kims have established a quasi-religious status that unifies public loyalty through a blend of propaganda and state control (Mason, 2015).

The models of nondemocratic rule can be categorized into several types, including personal/military rule, one-party regimes, theocracies, and hybrid systems. Each model is characterized by distinct features that reflect the complexity of nondemocratic governance (Linz, 2000). For instance, theocratic regimes, such as Iran, utilize religious legitimacy as a foundation for political authority, often merging civil and theological systems in a unique configuration of governance.

In conclusion, understanding nondemocratic regimes requires a multifaceted approach that considers the origins, mechanisms of control, and various models of authoritarian rule. Comparative politics allows for the examination of these themes, helping scholars and practitioners identify patterns, draw lessons from different contexts, and explore pathways towards democratization. As the global landscape shifts, the resilience and adaptability of nondemocratic regimes remain critical points of analysis.

References

• Bermeo, N. (2016). On Democratic Backsliding. Journal of Democracy, 27(1), 5-19.
• Diamond, L. (2020). Ill Winds: Saving Democracy from Russian Rage, Chinese Ambition, and Iranian Fear. Penguin Press.
• Eisenstadt, S. N. (2004). The Political Sociology of Modernity. New York: Stanford University Press.
• Huntington, S. P. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Simon & Schuster.
• Levitsky, S., & Roberts, K. M. (2011). The Resurgence of the Latin American Left. Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Linz, J. J. (2000). Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. In R. Collins (Ed.), The Sociology of Political Life (pp. 117–170). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Mason, L. (2015). North Korea: A Political and Economic Handbook. Nova Science Publishers.
• Pavlović, I. (2020). Authoritarianism and Civil Society: An Analysis of the Impact of State Control on Civil Society Organizations. International Journal of Public Administration, 43(16), 1393-1402.
• Ross, M. (2012). The Oil Curse: How Petroleum Wealth Shapes the Development of Nations. Princeton University Press.
• Teorell, J., Torcal, M., & Montero, J. R. (2012). Political Support in a Changing World. In M. Arghavan & L. Jelen (Eds.), Political Support in a Changing World (pp. 9-47). Routledge.
• Zhao, S. (2020). The Tiananmen Square Protests, Scale, and Response. China Quarterly, 244, 769-791.