Inter-Research And Studies (IRAS)

In the contemporary world, it is also true that authoritarian governments or regimes are often identified by the presence of only one political party. Instead of classifying states according to the location and scope of political power, it in fact may be more useful to classify them according to the number and characteristics of their political parties. And there should be little doubt that a government that permits only one party to operate in the political system is an authoritarian government. No organized political opposition exists; there is no alternative set of political leaders that can take the place of the existing elites for the purpose of implementing new programs; political communications are strictly according to what the government and its ruling party allow; and alteration of government personnel and policies must take place within the single party, usually only after the death or purging of the dominant leader. Generalizations such as these are difficult to unders...

It will not come by a surprise to most of the history or political science students that most of the governments around the world and throughout the history deserve to be classified as "authoritarian". Monarchies (rule by one), aristocracies (rule by the titled few), oligarchies (rule by the untitled few, military, civilian) and plutocracies (rule by the wealthy) are all authoritarian regimes because the majority of citizens do not have any direct or institutionalized role in policy making; they do not participate in elections and they are not organized into competing political parties or clearly identified interest groups. As Greek and Roman political philosophers argued, however, government by the few does not mean that policy making will always be inconsistent with the interests and demands of the many in the society. In the past, for example, authoritarian governments have reduced or eliminated the influences of religious institutions over the social and economic lives...

Like monarch, aristocratic elites have survived only they have not resisted fundamental political and social change, especially the gradual democratization of political authority and the development of new sources of wealth along with economic growth and industrialization. For example, in England, the aristocracy proved receptive to capitalism, in part because the land was early given over the raising of sheep for the profitable wool trade and in part because only the firstborn male could inherit his father's property and aristocratic title. In England, there were consequently many sons and daughters of aristocracy who were without inherited title of wealth and they frequently made alliances in business and through marriages with an enterprising bourgeoisie or middle class. In the most of the continental countries of Europe, however, the land remained under the plow for production of cereal crops. This in turn induced the land aristocracy to insist on maintaining its tradition...