One-Party Rule
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 understand without some concrete examples. It is likely that in reading through the above characteristics of authoritarian or one-party states, the reader thought of one or more contemporary countries like the Soviet Union, China, East Germany, North Korea, Laos or Vietnam? Yes. According to the above criteria, these listed countries definitely qualify as authoritarian states. But what about Yugoslavia, Egypt, Mexico, Algeria or South Korea or even the Philippines during that era?
These and many other countries like them are also characterized by a weak or non-existent political opposition and by oligarchic rule that enjoys a monopoly on political communications and policy making. Clearly, then some countries are more authoritarian than the others and it is appropriate to think of authoritarianism in terms of a continuous of regime types instead of insisting on the dichotomous categories of "either-or".
在當今世界，這也是事實，往往只有一個政黨的存在確定的獨裁政府或政權。分類國家根據政治權力的位置和範圍，它實際上可能更有益的分類，根據其政黨的數量和特點。
並且應該是毫無疑問，只允許一方在政治體制運作的政府是一個專制的政府。沒有任何有組織的政治反對派存在，有沒有另一套政治領導人可以採取現有的精英，為實施新方案的目的地點;政治溝通，嚴格按照政府和執政黨允許什麼和改變政府人員和政策必須考慮的單一政黨內的地方，通常只有後死亡或佔主導地位的領導者清除。
如這些概括是很難理解，沒有一些具體的例子。它可能是讀通過的獨裁或一黨制國家的上述特點，認為當代的一個或多個國家，如蘇聯，中國，東德，朝鮮，老撾或越南的讀者？是。根據上述標準，這些上市的國家，絕對有資格作為獨裁國家。但是，南斯拉夫，埃及，墨西哥，阿爾及利亞，韓國，甚至菲律賓在那個時代呢？
像他們這些和其他許多國家也由弱或不存在的政治反對派和享有政治上的溝通和決策的壟斷寡頭統治的特點。顯然，一些國家比其他人更專制的威權認為，在一個連續的制度，而不是堅持“非此即彼”的二元類別類型的條款是適當的。
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 understand without some concrete examples. It is likely that in reading through the above characteristics of authoritarian or one-party states, the reader thought of one or more contemporary countries like the Soviet Union, China, East Germany, North Korea, Laos or Vietnam? Yes. According to the above criteria, these listed countries definitely qualify as authoritarian states. But what about Yugoslavia, Egypt, Mexico, Algeria or South Korea or even the Philippines during that era?
These and many other countries like them are also characterized by a weak or non-existent political opposition and by oligarchic rule that enjoys a monopoly on political communications and policy making. Clearly, then some countries are more authoritarian than the others and it is appropriate to think of authoritarianism in terms of a continuous of regime types instead of insisting on the dichotomous categories of "either-or".
在當今世界，這也是事實，往往只有一個政黨的存在確定的獨裁政府或政權。分類國家根據政治權力的位置和範圍，它實際上可能更有益的分類，根據其政黨的數量和特點。
並且應該是毫無疑問，只允許一方在政治體制運作的政府是一個專制的政府。沒有任何有組織的政治反對派存在，有沒有另一套政治領導人可以採取現有的精英，為實施新方案的目的地點;政治溝通，嚴格按照政府和執政黨允許什麼和改變政府人員和政策必須考慮的單一政黨內的地方，通常只有後死亡或佔主導地位的領導者清除。
如這些概括是很難理解，沒有一些具體的例子。它可能是讀通過的獨裁或一黨制國家的上述特點，認為當代的一個或多個國家，如蘇聯，中國，東德，朝鮮，老撾或越南的讀者？是。根據上述標準，這些上市的國家，絕對有資格作為獨裁國家。但是，南斯拉夫，埃及，墨西哥，阿爾及利亞，韓國，甚至菲律賓在那個時代呢？
像他們這些和其他許多國家也由弱或不存在的政治反對派和享有政治上的溝通和決策的壟斷寡頭統治的特點。顯然，一些國家比其他人更專制的威權認為，在一個連續的制度，而不是堅持“非此即彼”的二元類別類型的條款是適當的。
