Autocracy

"Autocrat" redirects here. For other uses, see Autocrat (disambiguation).

Not to be confused with adhocracy.

Nicholas II of Russia on the cover of Puck magazine, 1905 February 8

Autocracy is a system of government in which absolute power over a state is concentrated in the hands of one person, whose decisions are subject neither to external legal restraints nor to regularized mechanisms of popular control (except perhaps for the implicit threat of a coup d'état or other forms of rebellion).

In earlier times, the term autocrat was coined as a favorable description of a ruler, having some connection to the concept of "lack of conflicts of interests" as well as an indication of grandeur and power. This use of the term continued into modern times, as the Russian emperor was styled "Autocrat of all the Russias" as late as the early 20th century. In the 19th century, Eastern and Central Europe were under autocratic monarchies within the territories of which lived diverse peoples.

Autocracy is the most common and durable regime type since the emergence of the state. There were 84 countries codified as autocracies under the Regimes of the World system in 2022.

Etymology and use

Autocracy comes from the Ancient Greek autos (Greek: αὐτός; "self") and kratos (Greek: κράτος; "power", "strength") from Kratos, the Greek personification of authority.

The word autocrat comes from the Greek term autokrator. This term was originally used in ancient Greece to denote monarchy, but it was later reinvented as an imperial title in the Byzantine Empire during the 7th century by translating the Latin imperator. It was subsequently adopted by rulers of medieval Russia and Serbia, translated as samoderzhet.

Political structure

An autocracy is a government in which the leader, known as an autocrat, is not freely chosen through democratic means. Autocracy traditionally entails a single ruler, though non-democratic rule by a group may also be defined as autocratic. Autocracy is distinct from democracy and feudalism, and modern autocracy is often defined as any non-democratic government. As with all forms of government, autocracy has no clearly defined boundaries, and it may intersect with other forms of governance. Governments that blend democratic and autocratic rule are referred to as anocracies.

Autocracies impose few to no limits on the power of the autocrat, and they are limited in what formal institutions they have that create accountability to the people. To maintain power, an autocrat must have the support of elites that hold influence in the country and assist the autocrat in carrying out their will. The amount of direct control that an autocrat wields in practice may vary. As an autocratic government solidifies its rule, it develops stronger institutions to carry out the autocrat's will. These institutions are necessary for maintaining control and extracting value from the state, but they can also serve as checks on the autocrat. Some autocracies incorporate an elected legislature that has a limited ability to check the power of the autocrat, though these are not formed through free and fair elections. These legislatures may also be prone to corruption and can be influenced by the autocrat in exchange for preferential treatment. Other institutions, such as an independent judiciary or an active civil society, may also limit the autocrat's power.

Some autocracies emphasize a ruling family rather than a single autocrat. This has been the case of most monarchies. Such arrangements allow for royal intermarriage, which can join autocracies together through dynastic unions. Personalist dictatorships may also give significance to the ruling family through a cult of personality, such as the Kim family of North Korea.

Though autocracy usually encompasses an entire country, it can sometimes take place at subnational or local levels, even in countries with a more democratic government, if the national government has limited control over a specific area or its political conflicts.

Origin and development

Formation

The initial development of an autocracy is attributed to its efficiency over anarchy, as it provides security and negates internal divisions. Mancur Olson introduced the term "stationary bandits" to describe the method of control associated with autocracy, as opposed to the "roaming bandits" that dominate anarchic society. Under this definition, autocrats as stationary bandits see long term investment in the society that they exploit and seek to improve it, as opposed to the bandits in stateless societies that have no incentive to improve society. This creates a Pareto efficiency in which both the autocrat and the subjects benefit over the alternative.

Douglass North, John Joseph Wallis, and Barry R. Weingast describe autocracies as limited access orders that arise from this need to monopolize violence. In contrast to Olson, these scholars understand the early state not as a single ruler, but as an organization formed by many actors. They describe the process of autocratic state formation as a bargaining process among individuals with access to violence. For them, these individuals form a dominant coalition that grants each other privileges such as the access to resources. As violence reduces the rents, members of the dominant coalition have incentives to cooperate and to avoid fighting. A limited access to privileges is necessary to avoid competition among the members of the dominant coalition, who then will credibly commit to cooperate and will form the state.

Autocracy is more likely to form in heterogeneous populations, as there is greater inequality and less social cohesion. Autocracies formed under these conditions are often more volatile for the same reasons.

Stability and succession

Autocracies face challenges to their authority from several fronts, including the citizenry, political opposition, and internal disloyalty from elites. As autocrats must share their power with the state's elites to see their will carried out, these elites are the greatest threat to the autocrat. Most autocratic governments are overthrown by a coup, and most are succeeded by another autocratic government. Overthrow of an autocratic government purely through popular revolt is virtually nonexistent throughout history. While popular support for revolution is often necessary to overthrow an autocratic government, most revolts are accompanied by internal support from elites who believe that it is no longer in their interest to support the autocrat. As such, popular support for democracy is a significant indicator of challenges to autocratic rule. Modernization and increased wealth are often associated with stronger support for democracy, though failing to provide these things also reduces support for the autocratic regime. Popular revolt is most likely to occur during periods of reform. Government reform can provide an impetus for stronger opposition, especially when it does not meet expectations, and it can weaken the centralization of power through poor implementation. When revolt appears likely, an autocrat may grant civil rights, redistribute wealth, or abdicate from power entirely to avoid the threat of violence.

The primary distinction between dictatorial and monarchic government is the method of succession. Monarchies have an established hereditary order of succession, while dictatorships do not. In practice, this distinction is often blurred, as dictators frequently seek to install hereditary successors. Autocratic rule is most unstable during succession from one autocrat to another. Violent conflict to determine a successor is more common in dictatorships, though it can also occur in monarchies. When rule passes between autocrats, the incoming autocrat often inherits an established bureaucracy. This bureaucracy facilitates the transfer of power, as the new ruler gains immediate control over the nation without having to conquer its people or win their popular support.

Some autocrats use claims of divine authority to justify their rule, often in absolute monarchy. This includes the Mandate of Heaven in ancient China and the divine right of kings in medieval England and France.

Types of autocracy

Autocracy encompasses most non-democratic forms of government, including dictatorships, monarchies, and dominant-party regimes. Historically, monarchies have been the most common of these types, but dictatorship is more common in the modern era.

Autocratic governments are classified as totalitarian when they engage in direct control of citizens' lives, or as authoritarian when they do not. Totalitarian governments do not allow political or cultural pluralism. Instead, citizens are expected to devote themselves to a single ideological vision and demonstrate their support of the state ideology through political engagement. Totalitarian governments are revolutionary, seeking to radically reform society, and they often engage in terror against groups that do not comply with the state's vision. Totalitarianism is associated with communist states and Nazi Germany. Authoritarian governments maintain control of a nation purely through repression and controlled opposition rather than mandated adherence to a state ideology. These include most traditional monarchies, military dictatorships, theocracies, and dominant party states.

Sultanism is a type of autocracy in which a ruling family directly integrates itself into the state through a cult of personality, where it maintains control purely through rewards for allies and force against enemies. In these regimes, there is no guiding ideology or legal system, and the state serves only to bring about the leader's own personal enrichment. Other descriptors, such as tyranny, despotism, and absolutism may also be associated with variations of autocracy.

Though autocracies often restrict civil and political rights, some may allow limited exercise of some rights. These autocracies grant moderate representation to political opponents and allow exercise of some civil rights, though less than those associated with democracy. Such governments may be recognized as semi-liberal autocracies. They are contrasted with closed autocracies, which do not permit the exercise of these rights. According to the 2022 V-Dem Democracy Report, there is a growing number of closed autocracies (30 countries as of 2020), that account for 26% of the global population. In order to move a country toward liberal democracy in a closed autocracy, there needs to be an initial semi-liberal autocratic transition phase (unless they become occupied by foreign powers during a war who are willing to democratize).

Electoral autocracy is a form of hybrid regime in which the autocrat gains control through a democratic procedure, such as an election. Once in charge, an autocrat will, however, use their position to expand their authority, restrict the impact of other political figures, and attack democratic institutions like the court and the free press, manipulating contestation to make turnover unlikely or impossible. Although there may be some appearance of democracy under an electoral autocracy, in reality the autocrat controls most of the authority, and the public has little opportunity to hold them accountable, as with a closed autocracy. This is also referred to as a “hybrid regime that leans more toward the autocratic side”. Electoral autocracies are still considered to be the most common government structure globally - 44% of the world’s population live under this regime.

History

Further information: History of monarchy and History of dictatorship

Ancient history

Autocracy has been the primary form of government for most of human history. One of the earliest forms of government was the chiefdom that developed in tribal societies, which date back to the Neolithic. Chiefdoms are regional collections of villages ruled over by tribal chief. They are an emergent form of governance, originating from societies that previously lacked a centralized authority. Historical chiefs often held only tenuous power over the chiefdom, but they trended toward autocracy as heterarchical governance was replaced with hierarchical governance.

Early states were formed by warlords ruling over conquered territory. The first states were the kingdoms of Mesopotamia, ruled by kings who were both political and religious leaders. These were followed by the first empire, the Akkadian Empire, when they were conquered by Sargon of Akkad in the 24th century BCE. The blending of autocratic rule with religious significance continued under the Akkadian Empire, as the king Naram-Sin of Akkad was the first of several kings to be recognized as a god over the following centuries.

China has been subject to autocratic rule almost without interruption since its ancient feudal society was replaced by the Qin dynasty in 221 BCE, and even its feudal government had stronger elements of autocracy than other instances of feudalism. The early Chinese philosophy of Confucianism emphasized the importance of benevolent autocratic rule to maintain order, and this philosophy heavily influenced future Chinese thought.

City-states in Ancient Greece and the Etruscan civilization were often ruled by tyrants, though myth and historical revisionism later re-imagined these tyrants as kings with hereditary succession. The Roman Republic introduced the concept of the Roman dictator who would be temporarily invested with unchecked power to restore stability during periods of crisis. This temporary dictatorship was eventually subverted by Julius Caesar when he became dictator for life in 44 BCE, ending the Roman Republic and ushering the creation of the autocratic Roman Empire.

Post-classical era

Parliamentary monarchies became common in the 13th century as monarchs sought larger advising bodies that were representative of the kingdom. European nations moved away from feudalism and toward centralized monarchy as the primary form of government in the 14th century. Monarchies moved toward absolute monarchy at the onset of the 16th century as legislatures were tailored to enforce the king's will but not challenge it.

Modern era

Absolutism became common in early modern Europe as the continent struggled with weak leadership and religious conflict. Monarchies became absolute monarchies in which the monarch was empowered to make all of the decisions for the kingdom. This was sometimes justified through the divine right of kings, particularly in the kingdoms of England and France.

The idea of dictatorship as a form of tyrannical rule first developed in the 18th century as republicanism became a prominent ideology. European monarchies moved away from autocracy in the 19th century as legislatures increased in power. The 19th and 20th centuries brought about the decline of traditional monarchies in favor of modern states, many of which developed as autocracies.

The upheaval caused by World War I resulted in a broad shift of governance across Europe, and many nations moved away from traditional monarchies. Most European monarchs were stripped of their powers to become constitutional monarchs, or they were displaced entirely in favor of republics. Totalitarianism first developed as a form of autocracy during the interwar period. It seized power in many of these republics, particularly during the Great Depression. This saw the establishment of fascist, communist, and military dictatorships throughout Europe.

The communist state first developed as a new form of autocracy following the Russian Revolution. This type of autocratic government enforced totalitarian control over its citizens through a mass party said to represent the citizens. While other forms of European dictatorship were dissolved after World War II, communism was strengthened and became the basis of several dictatorships in Eastern Europe. Communist states became the primary model for autocratic government in the late-20th century, and many non-communist autocratic regimes replicated the communist style of government.

The decline in autocracy across Western Europe affected autocratic government elsewhere in the world through colonization. Regions with historically strong autocratic states were able to resist European colonization or otherwise went unchanged, allowing autocracy to be preserved. Societies without a state were readily colonized by European nations and subsequently adopted democracy and parliamentary government after it became common in Europe.

The strength of autocracy in global politics was significantly reduced at the end of the Cold War with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, but it saw a resurgence over the following decades through regional powers such as China, Iran, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. The fall of totalitarian regimes led to authoritarianism becoming the predominant form of autocracy in the 21st century.

Political activity

Political repression is the primary method by which autocrats preserve the regime and prevent the loss of power. This repression may take place implicitly by coercing and intimidating potential opposition, or it may involve direct violence. Autocratic governments also engage in co-optation, in which influential figures are provided benefits by the regime in exchange for their support. Coercing these elites is usually more efficient for the autocrat than intimidating them through violence. Political parties are a common method of co-optation and coercion, as they provide a mechanism to control members of the government, initiate new members, and discourage a military coup. Autocratic governments controlled through a political party last longer on average than other autocratic governments.

Control over the public is maintained through indoctrination and propaganda. Autocratic governments enjoy similar levels of public support to democratic governments, and a state's status as autocratic is not a significant indicator in whether it is supported by its citizens. Autocrats often appeal to the people by supporting a specific political, ethnic, or religious movement.

Autocratic regimes in the 21st century have departed from the historical precedent of direct rule in favor of institutions that resemble those of democratic governments. This may include controlled liberties for citizens such as the formation of opposition parties to participate in unfair elections. Elections provide several benefits to autocratic regimes, allowing for a venue to restrain or appease the opposition and creating a method to transfer power without violent conflict. Many autocrats also institute show trials to carry out political repression rather than carrying out direct purges. This may be done to more publicly discourage future dissidents. Prior to this trend, autocratic elections rarely invited public participation. They were instead used by elites to choose a leader amongst themselves, such as in an electoral monarchy. The creation of a constitution is another common measure used by autocrats to stay in power; as they are able to draft the constitution unilaterally, it can be tailored to suit their rule.

Maintenance

Because autocrats need a power structure to rule, it can be difficult to draw a clear line between historical autocracies and oligarchies. Most historical autocrats depended on their nobles, their merchants, the military, the priesthood, or other elite groups. In recent years researchers have found significant connections between the types of rules governing succession in monarchies and autocracies and the frequency with which coups or succession crises occur.

According to Douglass North, John Joseph Wallis, and Barry R. Weingast, in limited access orders the state is ruled by a dominant coalition formed by a small elite group that relates to each other by personal relationships. To remain in power, this elite hinders people outside the dominant coalition to access organizations and resources. Autocracy is maintained as long as the personal relationships of the elite continue to forge the dominant coalition. These scholars further suggest that once the dominant coalition starts to become broader and allow for impersonal relationships, limited access orders can give place to open access orders.

For Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James Robinson, the allocation of political power explains the maintenance of autocracies which they usually refer to as "extractive states". For them, the de jure political power comes from political institutions, whereas the de facto political power is determined by the distribution of resources. Those holding the political power in the present will design the political and economic institutions in the future according to their interests. In autocracies, both de jure and de facto political powers are concentrated in one person or a small elite that will promote institutions for keeping the de jure political power as concentrated as the de facto political power, thereby maintaining autocratic regimes with extractive institutions.

Yu-Ming Liou and Paul Musgrave have found evidence that resource-rich autocracies often times apply antisocial policies in order to harm targeted groups (for example, restricting women's autonomy, especially in Middle Eastern autocracies) as a form of strategy to stay in power.

Study and evaluation

Autocratic government has been central to political theory since the development of Ancient Greek political philosophy. Despite its historical prominence, autocracy has not been widely recognized as its own political theory in the way that democracy has. Autocratic government is generally considered to be less desirable than democratic government. Reasons for this include its proclivity for corruption and violence as well as its lack of efficiency and its weakness in promoting liberty and transparency.

Historically, data on the operation of autocratic government has been limited, preventing detailed study. Study of postcolonial autocracy in Africa has been particularly limited, as these governments were less likely to keep detailed records of their activities relative to other governments at the time, and they frequently destroyed the records that did exist. Study of citizen support for autocratic government relative to democratic government has also been infrequent, and most studies conducted in this area have been limited to East Asia. Collection of information on autocratic regimes has improved in the 21st century, allowing for more detailed analysis.

Autocratic government has been found to have effects on a country's politics, including its government's structure and bureaucracy, long after it democratizes. Comparisons between regions have found disparities in citizen attitudes, policy preferences, and political engagement depending on whether it had been subject to autocracy, even in different regions within the same country. Citizens of postcommunist nations are more likely to distrust government and free markets, directly hindering the long term economic prosperity of these nations. Xenophobia is generally more common in post-autocratic nations, and voters in these nations are more likely to vote for far-right or far-left political parties.

Modern typology of autocratic regimes originates from the work of Juan Linz in the mid-20th century, when his division of democracy, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism became accepted. At the end of the Cold War, Francis Fukuyama's theory of the end of history became popular among political scientists. This theory proposed that autocratic government was approaching a permanent decline to be replaced by liberal democracy. This theory was largely abandoned after the increase in autocratic government over the following decades. In the 2010s, the concept of "autocracy promotion" became influential in the study of autocracy, proposing that some governments have sought to establish autocratic rule in foreign nations, though subsequent studies have found little evidence to support that such efforts are not as widespread or successful as originally thought.

See also

• Absolute monarchy
• Autarchism
• Caudillo
• Centralisation
• Caesaropapism
• Führerprinzip
• Kleptocracy
• Monocracy
• Political polarization
• Ruscism
• Triumvirate
• Tsarist autocracy
• Theonomy

References

Books

• Earle, Timothy K. (1997). How Chiefs Come to Power: The Political Economy in Prehistory. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-2856-0.
• Grzymala-Busse, Anna; Finkel, Eugene (2022). Jenkins, Jeffrey A.; Rubin, Jared (eds.). Historical Political Economy of Autocracy. The Oxford Handbook of Historical Political Economy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-761860-8.
• Fu, Zhengyuan (1993). Autocratic Tradition and Chinese Politics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-52144-228-2.
• Gerschewski, Johannes (2023). The Two Logics of Autocratic Rule. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-009-19941-4.
• Gibbons, Michael T.; Coole, Diana H.; Ellis, Elisabeth; Ferguson, Kennan, eds. (2014). The Encyclopedia of Political Thought. Wiley Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-118-47439-6.
  • Grigg, Julianna. "Monarchy". In Gibbons et al. (2014).
  • Hulliung, Mark. "Absolutism". In Gibbons et al. (2014).
  • Murphy, Andrew R. "Divine Right of Kings". In Gibbons et al. (2014).
• Golosov, Grigorii V. (2021). Authoritarian Party Systems: Party Politics in Autocratic Regimes, 1945-2019. World Scientific. ISBN 978-1-80061-116-0.
• MacKenzie, John (2016). The Encyclopedia of Empire. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-118-45507-4.
  • Schrakamp, Ingo. "Akkadian Empire". In MacKenzie (2016).
• Mauk, Marlene (2019). Citizen Support for Democratic and Autocratic Regimes. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-885485-2.
• Morgan, Kathryn A., ed. (2003). Popular Tyranny: Sovereignty and Its Discontents in Ancient Greece. University of Texas Press. ISBN 978-0-29279-782-6.
  • Morris, Sarah. "Imaginary Kings: Alternatives to Monarchy in Early Greece". In Morgan (2003), pp. 1–24.
• Mukherjee, Bumba; Koren, Ore (2018). The Politics of Mass Killing in Autocratic Regimes. Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-91758-0.
• Siaroff, Alan (2013). Comparing Political Regimes: A Thematic Introduction to Comparative Politics, Third Edition. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-1-4426-0702-6.
• Shen-Bayh, Fiona Feiang (2022). Undue Process. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-009-19713-7.
• Tullock, Gordon (1987). Autocracy. Springer. ISBN 978-90-247-3398-9.

Journals

• Beliaev, Dmitri D.; Bondarenko, Dmitri M.; Korotayev, Audrey V. (2001). "Origins and evolution of chiefdoms". Reviews in Anthropology. 30 (4): 373–395. doi:10.1080/00988157.2001.9978293. ISSN 0093-8157.
• Brisch, Nicole (2013). "Of Gods and Kings: Divine Kingship in Ancient Mesopotamia: Divine Kingship in Ancient Mesopotamia". Religion Compass. 7 (2): 37–46. doi:10.1111/rec3.12031.
• Gurr, Ted Robert; Jaggers, Keith; Moore, Will H. (1990). "The Transformation of the Western State: The Growth of Democracy, Autocracy, and State Power Since 1800". Studies In Comparative International Development. 25 (1): 73–108. doi:10.1007/BF02716906. ISSN 0039-3606.
• Hariri, Jacob Gerner (2012). "The Autocratic Legacy of Early Statehood". American Political Science Review. 106 (3): 471–494. doi:10.1017/S0003055412000238. ISSN 0003-0554.
• Kalyvas, Andreas (2007). "The Tyranny of Dictatorship: When the Greek Tyrant Met the Roman Dictator". Political Theory. 35 (4): 412–442. doi:10.1177/0090591707302208. ISSN 0090-5917.
• Kršljanin, Nina (2017). "Кршлянин Н. Титул самодержца (автократора) в Сербии и России: два пути развития византийского наследия" [The Title of Samoderzhets (Autokrator) In Serbia and Russia: Two Ways of Byzantine Heritage Development]. Вестник Волгоградского государственного университета. Серия 4, История. Регионоведение. Международные отношения. (in Russian). 22 (5): 162–183. doi:10.15688/jvolsu4.2017.5.16.
• Tansey, Oisín (2015). "The problem with autocracy promotion". Democratization. 23 (1): 141–163. doi:10.1080/13510347.2015.1095736. ISSN 1351-0347.
• Way, Lucan (2016). "Weaknesses of Autocracy Promotion". Journal of Democracy. 27 (1): 64–75. doi:10.1353/jod.2016.0009. ISSN 1086-3214.
• Zeev, Miriam Pucci Ben (1996). "When was the title «Dictator perpetuus» given to Caesar ?". L'Antiquité Classique. 65: 251–253. ISSN 0770-2817.

External links

• Felix Bethke: "Research on Autocratic Regimes: Divide et Impera", Katapult-Magazine (2015-03-15)