Authoritarianism
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 of the citizens. They have encouraged businesses to flourish and economic growth along with introducing basic welfare programmes for the lower classes; they have physically transported cultural minority groups to new areas where for perhaps for the first time in history the individual members of these groups could live in peace with their neighbours; they have resolved long-standing conflicts which aroused the passions of mutually hostile groups in the society and which no popularly elected elected government was strong enough to grapple with.
And they have also eliminated the threat of famine for millions of people, curtailed economic exploitations by moneylenders and given citizens their first opportunities for healthcare and education. However, critical one may be of the methods and ethical foundations of authoritarian governments, it is important not to overlook their occasionally significant and humanitarian achievements.
Given the prominence of authoritarianism in the history of the world, it would be a sad comment on the fate of mankind if the record of authoritarianism were categorically dismissed as all bad. In politics, unlike religion, nothing is either all good nor all bad. It depends on situation and the social structure during that particular period.
它不會是由大部分的歷史或政治學的學生，世界各地的政府和整個歷史最應該被歸類為“獨裁”的驚喜。君主制（規則一），貴族（題為幾規則），寡頭（規則無幾，軍用，民用）和plutocracies（富人的統治）是所有獨裁政權，因為大多數公民沒有任何直接或在決策制度化的作用，他們不參加選舉，他們沒有競爭的政黨或明確確定的利益群體組織。
然而，由於希臘和羅馬的政治哲學家認為，政府由少數人並不意味著決策總是會在許多社會的利益和要求不一致。例如，在過去的獨裁政府已經減少或消除以上的公民社會和經濟生活中的宗教機構的影響。他們鼓勵企業的蓬勃發展和經濟增長以及引進與下層的基本福利計劃;他們身體運到新的領域，在歷史上第一次為也許這些群體的個別成員可以生活在和平與文化少數群體他們的鄰居，他們已經解決了長期存在的衝突，引起社會的相互敵對群體的熱情並沒有民選的民選政府是強大到足以抓住。
他們也消除了數百萬人的飢荒威脅，限制高利貸者的經濟剝削和給予公民他們的第一個醫療保健和教育的機會。然而，關鍵的一個可能的方法和獨裁政府的道德基礎，它是重要的，不要忽略他們偶爾意義和人道主義的成就。
鑑於在世界歷史上的專制突出，這將是對人類命運的悲哀，如果獨裁的紀錄被斷然駁回所有壞。在政治，宗教不同，沒有什麼都好，也不全是壞事。這取決於在特定時期的形勢和社會結構。
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 of the citizens. They have encouraged businesses to flourish and economic growth along with introducing basic welfare programmes for the lower classes; they have physically transported cultural minority groups to new areas where for perhaps for the first time in history the individual members of these groups could live in peace with their neighbours; they have resolved long-standing conflicts which aroused the passions of mutually hostile groups in the society and which no popularly elected elected government was strong enough to grapple with.
And they have also eliminated the threat of famine for millions of people, curtailed economic exploitations by moneylenders and given citizens their first opportunities for healthcare and education. However, critical one may be of the methods and ethical foundations of authoritarian governments, it is important not to overlook their occasionally significant and humanitarian achievements.
Given the prominence of authoritarianism in the history of the world, it would be a sad comment on the fate of mankind if the record of authoritarianism were categorically dismissed as all bad. In politics, unlike religion, nothing is either all good nor all bad. It depends on situation and the social structure during that particular period.
它不會是由大部分的歷史或政治學的學生，世界各地的政府和整個歷史最應該被歸類為“獨裁”的驚喜。君主制（規則一），貴族（題為幾規則），寡頭（規則無幾，軍用，民用）和plutocracies（富人的統治）是所有獨裁政權，因為大多數公民沒有任何直接或在決策制度化的作用，他們不參加選舉，他們沒有競爭的政黨或明確確定的利益群體組織。
然而，由於希臘和羅馬的政治哲學家認為，政府由少數人並不意味著決策總是會在許多社會的利益和要求不一致。例如，在過去的獨裁政府已經減少或消除以上的公民社會和經濟生活中的宗教機構的影響。他們鼓勵企業的蓬勃發展和經濟增長以及引進與下層的基本福利計劃;他們身體運到新的領域，在歷史上第一次為也許這些群體的個別成員可以生活在和平與文化少數群體他們的鄰居，他們已經解決了長期存在的衝突，引起社會的相互敵對群體的熱情並沒有民選的民選政府是強大到足以抓住。
他們也消除了數百萬人的飢荒威脅，限制高利貸者的經濟剝削和給予公民他們的第一個醫療保健和教育的機會。然而，關鍵的一個可能的方法和獨裁政府的道德基礎，它是重要的，不要忽略他們偶爾意義和人道主義的成就。
鑑於在世界歷史上的專制突出，這將是對人類命運的悲哀，如果獨裁的紀錄被斷然駁回所有壞。在政治，宗教不同，沒有什麼都好，也不全是壞事。這取決於在特定時期的形勢和社會結構。
