Talk:Authoritarianism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Is Marxism-Leninism an authoritarian ideology

Looking at reliable sources, would you describe Marxism-Leninism as an Authoritarian ideology?

• (A) - No
• (B) - Yes

Thanks Bacondrum (talk) 04:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• No - Unless we have reliable sources that specifically describes communism itself as authoritarianism. Idealigic (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• This is not the RfC I proposed. This RfC is based on false premises. We are not disputing Marxism–Leninism, we are discussing communism. I oppose having communism as category; I do not oppose having Marxism–Leninism as category, although I actually propose to remove any ideology to avoid any issue on which ones to include and which ones to exclude. We should only list ideologies that form a core of authoritarianism. However, no ideology is a core of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is a core of fascism, but fascism is not a core of authoritarianism, per Authoritarianism and fascism. Hence, authoritarianism should be listed as category of fascism, but fascism should not be listed as category of authoritarianism; and the same goes for all other ideologies, per Levivich and Pfhorrest. No one has provided any source that specifically describes communism itself as authoritarianism, or that Marxism–Leninism is a core concept or tenet of authoritarianism rather than vice versa. Davide King (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  Let me also add that if "there is not such principle only 'core concepts' may be added as a category" and that mere relation (which, in my view, violates WP:CATV), we ought to add capitalism, conservatism, liberalism, populism, socialism (and who knows how many others) because there has been at least one regime of each ideology that has been authoritarian and all ideologies (but fascism) have a more authoritarian and a more democratic (in some cases libertarian) bent, current or wing. This is going to generate further endless discussions on which ones to include and exclude. It is and would be far better to simply remove them all from here and add authoritarianism as category on each individual article on a case-by-case analysis based on reliable sources and each article's main body. Davide King (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• Sure = B - categorization issues are discussed in the above section and there is not such principle only "core concepts" may be added as a category (any clearly related may be, as a person of French and Italian parents will be both in Italian and French category, even if not fully Italian or French, etc.), etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC))
• B — The "dictatorship of the proletariat"? That seems pretty clear to me. Truth is King^TALK 16:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• B Based on a number of high quality sources including The Great Terror: Stalin's Purge of the Thirties by Robert Conquest, The Black Book of Communism by Stéphane Courtois, Andrzej Paczkowski, Nicolas Werth, Martin Malia and Joachim Gauck. Anne Applebaum's Pulitzer Prize winning Gulag: A History, François Furet's, The Passing of an Illusion: The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century, The silent Steppe by Mukhamet Shai͡akhmetov, The Unknown Gulag: The Lost World of Stalin's Special Settlements by Lynne Viola and Authoritarian Politics in Modern Society: The Dynamics of Established One-party Systems by Samuel P. Huntington, plus many more. Bacondrum (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
• No The purpose of Wikipedia articles is not to tell people what to think, but to describe various opinions experts hold. As has been mentioned, right-wing anti-communist scholars such as Huntingdon, Applebaum, Furet and Conquest describe it that way, and we should explain their views. But let's not be authoritarians ourselves. Let's present the opposing views according to weight and not take sides. TFD (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• No I guess, for the purposes of this poll; "maybe" or "depends" is the correct answer. Basically just seconding Davide and TFD here. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
• No David King argued it well. ImTheIP (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
• No (invited by the bot) Even though both IMO inevitably lead to authoritarianism, I say "no" for two reasons: Our job here is to provide information, not characterize and if a characterization is significantly in dispute it's not information. Second, those are two different attributes of a political system and (even if there is correlation in practice) should not be blended in any taxonomy system.North8000 (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• No authoritarianism is a form of government, not an ideology, per Davide King. (t · c) buidhe 08:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe:, the RFC did not say Authoritarianism would be an ideology, Marxism-Leninism is that.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC))

• B - It obviously is one based on the fact that every Marxist-Leninist government was authoritarian. -- 177.207.146.84 (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

I object to this RfC because we were discussing whether communism (not Communist states or Marxism–Leninism) should stay or be removed as Categories, or at least be reworded to state whether Marxism–Leninism is a core concept of authoritarianism or whether reliable sources and academic books about authoritarianism routinely mention Marxism–Leninism, but if we are going through, we have to actually follow it. The opening post correctly states Looking at reliable sources, would you describe Marxism-Leninism as an Authoritarian ideology? But neither of those voting for B provided any reliable source to back up their arguments. Davide King (talk)

I think we need to establish some agreed facts to work from. I also agree votes should be based on RS's, as per relevant guidelines. Bacondrum (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. However, most of the sources you listed are mainly anti-Communists, some right-wing, or proponents of the totalitarian concept which is not accepted by all scholars and indeed "John Connelly argues that totalitarianism is a useful word, but that the old 1950s theory about it is defunct among scholars". As argued by The Four Deuces here, Anti-Communism does not mean opposition to Communism, but opposition to an extreme degree. That doesn't mean that their books are unreliable but that they present one view of events. The Black Book of Communism is a controversial book, whose author has been criticised by historians such as Amir Weiner because "Courtois, in his argument for the hundred million figure, was explicitly attacking what he called 'the international Jewish community' for emphasizing the crimes of Hitler in a way that displaced the much greater crimes of communism. Blame the Jews: that argument leaves The Black Book tainted". Either way, that is besides the point.

We were discussing Category:Communism, not Marxism–Leninism, so what is the point of this RfC? Do any of those sources actually say that small-c communism is authoritarian or a core concept of authoritarianism, or do they just refer to Marxism–Leninism? Do you think communism should be added as a category, even though having disagreement about property rights does not make one authoritarian; that, unlike fascism, communism also has a democratic and libertarian wing; and that there have been communists who democratically took part in Western governments and communist parties democratically elected to government that did not turn it into a Communist one-party state? This is what should be discussed. WP:CATV actually states that "[a] central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having". For small-c communism, that simply is not the case; and I would say this for all ideologies. There is not any single ideology that defines authoritarianism (hence, no ideology should be put as category), but there are many ideologies that have authoritarianism as a core concept (hence, fascism and Marxism–Leninism have authoritarianism as category).

This also avoids the endless issue on which ideologies to add and which ones to remove. For example, why not add capitalism, conservatism or even liberalism? The fascists, including the Nazis presided over capitalist economies; some scholars argue that the Soviet Union et al. presided over "administrative-command" or "state-capitalist" systems; and the authoritarian Pinochet, among others, put in practice economic liberalism by authoritarian means. Davide King (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Truth Is King 24's comment that The "dictatorship of the proletariat"? That seems pretty clear to me, I believe The Four Deuces' comment still applies, for there are and have been different interpretations. There is the Marxist–Leninist's interpretation but there are also many other interpretations. We have Marx and Engels themselves stating the Paris Commune as an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat which was based on universal suffrage, with recallable delegates, no standing army and I think private property was still there. In addition, we have had communists literally criticising and being persecuted for this already in 1918; we have communists such as the Socialist Party of Great Britain stating as soon as they took power that the Bolsheviks were going to establish state-capitalism (again, this was decades before academics took up the concept). So it is a myth to claim that communists and other socialists criticised the Soviet Union ipso facto. This is just further proof that communism is simply not as one-dimensional as fascism, which has no anti-authoritarian, democratic, libertarian, or even liberal wing or interpretation. Still, I reiterate my belief to exclude any ideology from the categories here and simply add authoritarianism as category on a case-by-case an analysis based on reliable sources and main body of each ideology's article. Davide King (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

This comment by The Four Deuces is also on point:

The same applies to the Soviet Union. While their system is frequently referred to as socialism, only Marxist-Leninists consider it to be so in reality. The issue is whether or not the economy was in the control of the Soviet working class and whether the Communist Party of the Soviet Union represented them in a democratic way. And the same applies to Bismark's state socialism or to reference any other capitalist society as socialist.

As far as I am aware, it is mainly anti-Communist and Marxist–Leninists who believe that the Soviet Union et al. were socialist, albeit for vastly different, opposing reasons. I am not aware of any consensus among scholars and I wish there was because I really want to what the hell was going on there as economic system. I think whether or not the economy was in the control of the Soviet working class and whether the Communist Party of the Soviet Union represented them in a democratic way is a good way to start analysing whether their system was actually socialist, or still capitalism, or neither, or a combination of sorts and something totally new. Davide King (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, Davide King, as for your first comment, none of the parties that you cite as stating a benign definition of "dictatorship of the proletariat" were at all Leninist. If we were discussing just "Marxism" sure, it is all theoretical. But when you add Lenin into the mix, I think you have to take a look at what Lenin actually did. And he seized power and used that power in a ruthlessly authoritarian manner. I would rather hope that you would not try to deny that, and if you do we can discuss it. So, when Lenin referenced a "dictatorship of the proletariat" I think he really meant "dictatorship." I would also think that if you do the research you will find that every authoritarian system has a similar bag of excuses about representing the "will of the people" or being popularly elected. I mean Stalin was just "Comrade Stalin." He was only the mere "General Secretary of the Communist Party." No highfalutin title for him. But if you were in the USSR he could have you killed at the stroke of a pen. As for your second comment, eight minutes later, I don't see anything about authoritarianism in that, so it seems irrelevant to the question at hand.Truth is King^TALK 15:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Truth Is King 24, so do you support the removal of communism as category and retaining Marxism–Leninism? I would be fine with this. Indeed, what we were discussing was the addition of communism as category (I do not understand why Bacondrum opened up this RfC in the first place; it should have been about communism, not Marxism–Leninism), not Marxism–Leninism, which seems to be at least more justified as category here, although I still prefer we remove any ideology as category from this article and simply have Category:Authoritarianism to Fascism and Marxism–Leninism, for example, which we already have. Davide King (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Davide King (talk · contribs) Thanks for asking - but I'd really have to think about that one.Truth is King^TALK 18:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, even if ML is unequivocally authoritarian, which it might be for all I know — even it communism were unequivocally authoritarian, which I know it is not — that would just mean that their articles belong in Category:Authoritarianism, not that the article on Authoritarianism belongs in either of their categories. It’s the set-subset thing again. The article Mammals does not belong in Category:Cats, even though cats are unequivocally mammals; that just means the article Cats belongs in Category:Mammals, not the other way around. —Pfhorrest (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice of RFC at Category:Communism

Your participation is invited at Category talk:Communism § Categorization of Communism, Totalitarianism, Authoritarianism. Thanks, Lev!vich 03:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I have boldly removed any ideology (in this case Fascism and Marxism–Leninism) per your WP:SUBCAT argument; so Fascism and Marxism–Leninism should have Authoritarianism as Category but they should not also be categorised here (they are not the only ideologies discussed as authoritarian, nor are they a core concept of authoritarianism) unless I am missing something; this also avoids endless wars on which ideologies to have or not have, since most ideologies have an authoritarian wing or have been authoritarian in practice. Davide King (talk) 08:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

KIENGIR, you have re-added both fascism and Marxism–Leninism, but both are already subcategories of Authoritarianism by the virtue of Totalitarianism being a subcategory of Authoritarianism, so it is redundant and Levivich's reading of SUBCAT is correct. Davide King (talk) 11:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I have the same opinion here as in my comment just now at the parallel discussion at Talk:Totalitarianism. In short, Authoritarianism should only be in Category:Authoritarianism and not any of its parent categories or child categories, per WP:Categorization guideline. Lev!vich 19:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Davide King,

before I would react tell me what you think about the difference between [[Category:Authoritarianism| ]] and [[Category:Authoritarianism]]. I answered in the other page about Levivich's comment referred here.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, I do not understand what you are pointing out but there does not seem any difference; they are the same thing. I believe there is a blank space in the first one because the article itself is Authoritarianism; if it was another article but that was part of category Authoritarianism, there would not be the blank space. I did not understand it at first and I remove the blank space but I remember I was reverted and explained why it is put there; other times, I even found a hidden note that explained the blank space. Either way, I agree with Levivich's comment above. Both fascism and Marxism–Leninism are already a subcategory of Authoritarianism, so there is no need to add them, especially when that only invites users to add more. Why not add conservatism? We have Authoritarian conservatism. We also have Authoritarian capitalism. Would it not better to simply follow WP:Categorization and WP:SUBCAT and not add any ideology as no specific ideology is a core concept or part of authoritarianism? This would avoid any endless war about which ones to add and which ones to remove. Davide King (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I will first investigate the exact difference. Btw. you don't have to repeat your point, I understood it, hence I won't answer poetrical questions of that, just be patient.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC))

If I 'repeat' is only to provide more context for users who may want to take part to the discussion, for example that this discussion has been ongoing both here and at Totalitarianism. In addition, Levivich well-explained here the difference. Still, we have rightly removed any ideology from Totalitarianism because relevant ideologies are already subcategories and Levivich gave a good argument and reason for why we should start following the guidelines regarding categories rather than use that as an excuse not to improve categorisation. So I hope you can remove yourself those two categories which are already subcategories because the same should be applied here. Davide King (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

No, repeating the same twice does not provide more context for anybody. Nobody wanted to find excuses not to improve categorization, that discussion did no even finish.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC))

History of authoritarianism

Looks like the above article was put together rather recently as a student assignment. I came across it because it's an orphan. I don't have the knowledge base to evaluate whether or not it's a bunch of hooey that should be deleted (although it seems suspect to be going back to 3000 BCE). Can anyone watchlisting this have a look? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2020

108.44.207.154 (talk) 08:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

poland 1981-1989 military goverment

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --TheImaCow (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Unlock

Interesting that during a period of unprecedented lockdowns throughout the West for the first time in decades, this page is not up for discussion by ordinary people. Another unjust lockdown? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.229.153 (talk) 07:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's all part of the vast conspiracy. At a group meeting a while back, Democrats, liberals, socialists, and communists all agreed that it would be too dangerous to allow ordinary people ("vassals" we call them) to have the ability to edit this article, since they might get too close to informing the public about The Truth. (We actually thought about closing down most articles to editing, leaving only those about Pokemon, Star Trek and so on for them to edit, which we thought would distract them long enough for us to consolidate our hold on the West.} Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Gasp! I knew it! Wait until I tell Twitter about this! --Pfhorrest (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Nix! Nix! It's a really, really big secret. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Poland on list

List is supposed to list "examples of states which are currently or frequently characterized as authoritarian" - sole linked source for Poland is about moving in that direction (with clickbait title, with article text not supporting it for Poland). (though I suspect that at least accusations are also appearing elsewhere) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• (1) Foreign Policy is not a "clickbait" website, its print version was founded by a Harvard professor and has been around since 1970.
• (2) I have added 6 additional citations which, moving forward in time from February 2018 to July 2020, you can see the descriptions of Poland proceeding from "shifting" to authoritarianism, to outright labeling it as authoritarian. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion that may be of interest to individuals here

Two discussions have started on the talk page for Talk:Far-left politics that may be of interest to editors here:

1. Proposal to remove the section on Far Left Terrorism: Talk:Far-left politics#Proposal to remove the section on Far Left Terrorism
2. Question on whether the lead should contain a passage about extremist violence and the Far left: Talk:Far-left politics#Question for consensus about controversial section added to lead

Uninvolved editors are needed, please join the discussion.  // Timothy :: talk  08:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Should Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany be included in this article?

BOLD edits were made to add Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany to the list of authoritarian countries in this article. An editor reverted those additions, but they did not -- as required to by WP:BRD -- start a discussion on this talk page about the edits. Instead, when the edits were restored by myself, the editor reverted again, thus taking the first step in edit warring. (Judging by their comments on their talk page, they do not understand what, exactly, edit warring is, although they are convinced that they do.)

Here, then, is the beginning of a discussion which the reverting editor failed to begin.

I grew up understanding that Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were totalitarian states, similar in that respect to the Communist Soviet Union. However, as an adult, having read extensively on the subject, I have noted that historians and other scholars are actually somewhat divided on whether those regimes were totalitarian or authoritarian. I believe that convincing arguments can be made either way, but the fact of the matter is that I do not perceive that there is a settled consensus about the question. For this reason, I think that the inclusion of those countries in this article is justified, especially if they are accompanied by a note mentioning the scholarly dispute about the nature of the regimes.

I'm posting this to get the opinions of other editors, and perhaps reach a consensus about whether those countries should or should not be included in this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken,

you start again? I already explained you after the second revert you should really enter to the talk page, your revert was not the second, btw. consistently you did not follow the BRD principle elsewhere, as well you should not revert away from the status quo of the article if a bold edit is contested per policy (and as well meanwhile the discussion is ongoing, but now this stands for Fenetrejones). The link you gave to my talk page just demonstrated that in fact you do did not understand appropriately our policies about this, and I am really sorry for that. At least, this time, you did not continue. Hence, remember very good, if one don't enter to the talk page immediately after the first revert, it is not necessarily a breach of policy (and I settled this question with 3 if not 4 administators in the past, so please don't try me anymore), at least, I am happy this time you chose to come here first, however you should have avoided again any personal apellations, comment on content, you know...

Fenetrejones,

please understand you need gain consensus, and I suggest you to revert yourself! If you would not have read the edit log, I copy for you here:

"there is a clear inclusion criteria laid down in the List of totalitarian regimes article, which is referring to this article, so we avoid double listings", so this issue is as well a procedural issue.

@DrKay:,

since you are dealing often with the article cross-referred, please handle this issue professionally. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC))

The inclusion criterion at the list of totalitarian states is that academic sources regularly refer to the state as totalitarian. A similar inclusion criterion here would seem straightforward. If academics regularly consider a state to be authoritarian, it should be included, and it should be easy to find sources. If it is difficult to find sources that list a state as authoritarian, then it doesn't belong. DrKay (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank You!

Then I ask from the two users to fullfil DrKay's request (which means DrKay has to agree and validate what may be presented here as well), then I will accept inclusion, otherwise the additions should be removed.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC))

No, it does not mean that at all. What it means is that there needs to be a WP:CONSENSUS among the editors discussing the issue here about whether the evidence presented is sufficient for inclusion in this article or not. As an editor, DrKay's opinion and evaluation of the evidence is important, but it is just as important as the opinion and evaluation of every other editor involved, as I think DrKay would agree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, you misinterpreted what I have written, since I did not say other editors opinion would not be important, I just stated under which conditions I agree inclusion, since DrKay very good did this in the other article, I will agree on what he agrees.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC))

And it doesn't really matter "which conditions you agree to", since we have a policy which deals with that, called WP:CONSENSUS. You act as if other editors here have to convince you, when what they have to do is find a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Please don't alter my post without permission (the second time). As well, please avoid consistently misinterpreting my sentences, since I know our policies, you should stop at once this line, since it is continously proved to be unnecessary. It is my sovereign right to declare in this discussion whom/with/what I agree.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC))

I did not "alter" your post. I moved your response -- in toto, without changing anything about its content -- to underneath my comment you were replying to, instead of underneath another unconnected comment of mine, an corrected the indentation. These things are allowed by WP:TPO. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

They are obviously authoritarian regimes. Totalitarianism is a form of authoritarianism, so there's nothing contradictory about saying those regimes were both. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Evidence that Nazi Germany is sometimes referred to as "Authoritarian"

• On the question of whether Nazi Germany was a totalitarian regime or an authoritarian one, here is Norbert Frei, from the Institute of Contemporary History in Munich, on why it was not a totalitarian one:

  The careful empirical examination of the political behaviour of the population contradicts the concept, inspired by the theory of totalitarianism, of the individual robbed of all social and spiritual links, 'atomized' and thus totally exposed to the power of indoctrination. To a certain extent even the partially existing Volksgemeinschaft speaks against such an idea

  While little doubt can exist about the totalitarian character of the Nazi Weltanschauung and the primacy of monopolized politics ... it is all the more clear that the implementation of totalitarian power encountered limits in many areas of society. In order to give a relistic description of the historical reality of life it is therefore insufficient simply to portray the totalitarian intentions of the regime -- provable at every turn because they were so loudly proclaimed by Nazi propaganda. The decisive question is in which areas, at which juncture and how extensively these demands could be met. This perspective opens up a picture of niches, free space and private preserves which National Socialism was either unable to fill or could do so only to a limited degree: above all in the spheres of mass culture, the arts and religion, but also in many areas of technical civilization and everyday life.

  -- Frei, Norbert (1993) National Socialist Rule in Germany: The Führer State 1933-1945 Oxford: Blackwell. p.151. ISBN 0-631-18507-0

  In order words, while the Nazis aspired to a totalitarian state, they were unable to penetrate deeply enough into all aspects of life in order to create a totalitarian society. And, of course, a state which is not quite totalitarian is an authoritarian state. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• "on January 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler began laying the foundations of a Nazi state based on racist and authoritarian principles. In less than six months, Germany was transformed from a democratic state into a one-party Nazi dictatorship." "Encyclopedia: Foundations of the Nazi State" United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
• "2018 marks the 85th anniversary of the birth of the perhaps the most strident authoritarian regime in Western history: Nazi Germany." -- Jürgen von Mahs "'1933,' or What Hitler’s Ascendency Teaches Us About Authoritarianism" Public Seminar The New School
• "We can see how Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and others began to attack journalists, control the flow of information, and stir up nationalism by persecuting ethnic minorities or invading desirable lands. In some ways, their actions were like experiments, pushing the boundaries of authoritarian rule to see what they could get away with." -- Amy Elizabeth Robinson "Twentieth-Century Fascism II: Exercising Authoritarianism" Khan Academy
• "It was these lies that resonated with Hitler and his followers. They hoped to establish authoritarian rule first in Munich and then in Berlin to restore Germany‘s military strength." -- Michael Brenner "Pre-Nazi Germany tells us the fight to save American democracy is just beginning" The Washington Post
• "There are traits in the relationship between such an authoritarian government as Nazi Germany and its judiciary, that can best be explained by the decision makers being influenced by informal constraints, since the formal constraints could be abolished by a Fuhrer decree." -- Hans Peter Graver "1Judicial Independence under Authoritarian Rule – An Institutional Approach to the Legal Tradition of the West"
• "Another form of authoritarian regime is oriented around a single person or party. In the post-1933 National Socialist regime in Germany, for example, a Charismatic leader, Adolf Hitler, and his Nazi Party allies exercised sweeping and largely unconstrained authority..." -- Tom Ginsburg, Aziz Z. Huq (2018) How to Save a Constitutional Democracy University of Chicago Press
• "[T]he histories of most authoritarian regimaes are marked by at least some degree of internal resistance, admittedly, at most times, by just a very few. ... Nazi Germany, one of the most tyranical regimes of all time, certainly conforms to this pattern." Wayne Geerling, Gary Magee (2017) Quantifying Resistance: Political Crime and the People’s Court in Nazi Germany Springer.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@DrKay:,

would you please evaluate the sources presented here - not all are academic - does it meet the inclusion criteria you outlined (regularly, etc.)? Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC))

They would meet my criteria. DrKay (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2021 (2)

There are some wrong things about the articles. Kostas1488 (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Renat 13:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2021

Please change the following text:

Authoritarian regimes are also sometimes subcategorized by whether they are personalistic or populist.[47] Personalistic authoritarian regimes are characterized by arbitrary rule and authority exercised "mainly through patronage networks and coercion rather than through institutions and formal rules".[47] Personalistic authoritarian regimes have been seen in post-colonial Africa. By contrast, populist authoritarian regimes "are mobilizational regimes in which a strong, charismatic, manipulative leader rules through a coalition involving key lower-class groups".[47] Examples include Argentina under Jua Perón,[47] Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser[47] and Venezuela under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro.[54][55]

into:

Authoritarian regimes are also sometimes subcategorized by whether they are personalistic or populist.[47] Personalistic authoritarian regimes are characterized by arbitrary rule and authority exercised "mainly through patronage networks and coercion rather than through institutions and formal rules".[47] Personalistic authoritarian regimes have been seen in post-colonial Africa. By contrast, populist authoritarian regimes "are mobilizational regimes in which a strong, charismatic, manipulative leader rules through a coalition involving key lower-class groups".[47] Examples include Argentina under Jua Perón,[47] Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser[47] and Venezuela under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro.[54][55]

Personalist regimes differ from other regime types in that their inner circle is very small and arbitrarily assembled by the dictator according to criteria like personal friendship, loyalty or ties of kinship – the keyword here is trust. The personalist dictator chooses a select few to assist him in governing. In exchange for their loyalty they can share in the fruits of office. In non-personalist regimes this group is usually bigger and can coalesce into blocks or fractions that collaborate to formulate policy and is able to influence or control the dictator. However, under personal rule the balance of power is significantly tilted in favor of the leader, resulting in even fewer checks on his power. As such dictators favor loyalty over competence and in general distrust intelligentsia, members of the winning coalition often do not possess professional political careers and are ill-equipped to manage the tasks of the office bestowed on them. Without the dictator’s blessing they would never have acquired a position of power and if he is ousted chances are slim they will maintain their position. The dictator knows this and therefore uses such divide-and-rule tactics to keep his inner circle from coordinating actions (like coups) against him. The result is that such regimes have no internal checks and balances, and are thus unrestrained when exerting repression on their people, making radical shifts in foreign policy, or even starting wars (with other countries.) Peonski (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done: this is a very large addition of text which is for its size significantly under-referenced and appears at first glance as WP:OR or WP:CLOP. In order to avoid that appearance it requires further reliable sources and I would also suggest building consensus for this addition before using the {{edit protected}} template again. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2021

In "Examples" add Bulgaria under "Historical", "Time Period" should be "2009 - 2021 (with a brief pause in 2013)". "Ruling group or person" should be GERB party/ Boyko Borisov". In notes and refferences "Boyko Borisov is speculated to have been part of organised crime groups during the 90s. During the course of his rule, strived to centalize power around himself and/or close associates. Used populism, corporate and media pressure as well as election frauds on national and regional elections. 94.236.233.220 (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Problematic list of counties

I see the list of countries as problematic as it highlights de facto democracies as authoritarian. Even though there are sources I don’t see how that motivates the selection. If, for example Hungary is a “flawed democracy”. If countries in this category should be considered authoritarian the list should be much longer and include all of Balkan and most of Eastern Europe. 94.234.51.247 (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

It's hardly unusual for countries which are structurally democratic to be, in actuality, authoritarian - and Hungary is a good example. The "motivation" for the list is that reliable sources say that the countries are authoritarian, and we go by what RS's say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

About wrong information

You made India as authoritarian country since 2014. But you don't mention where you got the information. As a political science scholar I don't think it is a right information. Make sure you update it with proper source. 47.29.141.7 (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Canada is an authoritarian government

Canada is an authoritarian government 2001:569:BD32:C400:C851:F82A:A29:552C (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Canada introduced *de facto* martial law, including frozing and potentially siezing people's money, just because they were protesting. Also declined to talk to them at all. Right to protest is fundamental human right, and stealing peoples' money because they don't agree with you is simply what defines authoritarian state. This alone should mean it makes it onto the list, and that's not all there is.

Coincidentally, the protests are against breaking other human rights, such as self-deciding about medical procedures, such as Nuremberg Code's points 1 (there are repercussion for not taking the vaccine), 3 (the fact that virus is evolving was not taken into account), 4 (lockdowns have impact on mental health and healthcare availbility), 6 (young children have very low risk of severe covid symptoms), 7 (wasn't done at all), 8 (politicians did it), 9 (matrial law against protests) and 10 (even though this experiment did not stop, they doubled down and continued). The experiment I mean is obviously locking people at homes and the rollout of vaccines before long-term data to try to stop the pandemic.

This is worse than many countries on this list, including Poland that made it here just because the government broke the constitution. If a country that introduces (not de jure, but de facto) a martial law and steals peoples' money just because it doesn't agree with them does not make it here, I don't know which does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymhn (talk • contribs) 17:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ymhn: Your arguments are original research. What verification do you have from reliable sources? Peaceray (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Canada only introduced the "state of emergency" three day ago, pretty hard to find unbiased sources disucssing the actual state of democracy in Canada. Things might go different directions, too. They may bring army in, they may actually not freeze anyone's moeny, they might even freeze in indefinitely. That's why I wrote this in discussion section. Nevertheless, the facts that I stated here can be easily found anywhere - for instance about freezing the accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymhn (talk • contribs) 17:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ymhn: Please sign your posts, as I have reminded you on your talk page. This is an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline, & you cannot always rely on SineBot to do so.

The BBC article does not categorize Canada as being being an authoritarian country. Peaceray (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Another thing I wanted to add is Australia should be considered. They introduced exit visas, which obviously breaks freedom of movement, and they also limited movement to a few hours per day in distance limited to few miles from home, with police checks controlling this. Also same issues with personal and economic freedoms as Canada - including declaring protets illegal (which btw was not done in Poland, which made it to this list). They also broke their constituion, which on the other hand was enough for Poland to make it onto this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymhn (talk • contribs) 17:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Please note that a talk page is not a forum and it is not a soapbox. If you fail to produce verification from reliable sources, your original research merely appears to be opinion. Please produce citations. Peaceray (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Article violates Neutral point of view

This article uses judgmental language, states opinions as facts (or at least strongly implies they are facts), and is overtly biased against authoritarianism, and is therefore not neutral as required. Rather than including only criticisms of why authoritarianism is bad (which is obviously biased), there should be at minimum a section that lists the benefits of authoritarianism. Many sources that discuss the benefits of authoritarianism will not be from the "West", which if that is why they are discarded, is yet another bias. I am not an expert in the field, so here are some sources I found while focusing on the authoritarian government of China, although there are likely better ones...

What the West Gets Wrong About China

China hopes to flaunt the merits of its political system over America’s

Six advantages of China's political system

Advantages of China's political system: Points for stability

China's Economic Growth, Its Causes, Pros, Cons, and Future

I am including these because they clearly show that there are many people in unexpected places who see the benefits of authoritarianism, and not including their viewpoint is not neutral...

1/4 of Americans qualify as highly 'right-wing authoritarian,' new poll finds

U.S. Conservatives Are Uniquely Inclined Toward Right-Wing Authoritarianism Compared to Western Peers

Subs99 (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2022

India is a democracy, false information to spread hate against hate against India have edited this article to put India on the list. 2607:FEA8:5AA0:B570:899C:6893:2B6D:BC68 (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

"India is a democracy" A democracy which persecutes its own minorities, and where the perpetrators of the Gujarat pogrom got rewarded with higher political offices. Dimadick (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Credibility of Information

India is listed as Authoritarian government since 2014, there is no credible proof. The elections have been fair and terming a democratically elected government as Authoritarian is against the very democracy. 98.43.97.37 (talk) 09:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The page may have been vandalized during the run up to the assembly elections in India during early 2022 as part of a wider disinformation campaign by political parties hoping to cash in on negative public opinion about the incumbent government(s).

Section: Current Examples

Disputed Information: Inclusion of India under Mr. Narendra Modi as an example of an authoritarian country.

Correct Information.

India does not fulfil criteria for authoritarian government due to the presence of free and fair elections and an independent judiciary, as defined in the opening paragraphs of the article itself and citation number 7. As recently as 10 March 2022, the ruling party (BJP) has lost elections in the Punjab, a major state on the mainland, and narrowly won in another.

The federal structure also means that state governments don't necessarily follow the central government's directions or even have the same party ruling both the center and the state as evidenced by the following data:

Incumbent alliance in the central government: National Democratic Alliance(NDA) consisting of both right and left wing parties. Number of states ruled by NDA: 17

Main Opposition Alliance: United Progressive Alliance(UPA) consisting of left wing and centrist parties. Number of states ruled by (UPA): 5

Number of states ruled by unaffiliated opposition parties consisting of parties representing leftist, centrist, right wing and linguistic interests: 8

This is open source data and is also available on the following page:

State governments of India

The following are references confirming that India definitely is not an authoritarian country.

These news pieces dispute the authoritarian classification for India:

Engihistorian (talk) 08:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2022

The following information "India 2014– Narendra Modi [164][165][166]" is not factually correct and i have added relevant links to the talk page. Please add a [disputed-discuss] or [dubious-discuss] flag after the content.

Engihistorian (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done: which are currently or frequently characterized as authoritarian. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

End game?

- a discussion about how authoritarian regimes decline or fall would be interesting. Do they ever get less authoritarian? (!) Lawrence18uk (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2022

Under the section Historical Trends, there is a typo that reads: According to Charles H. Fairbanks Jr., "all the new states that stumbled out of the ruins of the Soviet bloc, except Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, seemed indeed to be moving toward democracy in the early 1990s" as where the countries of East Central Europe and the Balkans.

It should read: moving toward democracy in the early 1990s" as were the countries of East Central Europe 208.100.180.29 (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done — CAPTAIN JTK (talk) 06:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2022

Ruskovishere (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I want to add some leaders who were authoritarian like Boyko Borissov of Bulgaria 2009-2021

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2022

JTDG2005 (talk) 06:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Should Malaysia's UMNO regime count as authoritarianism?

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Images (Are all totalitarian governments authoritarian?)

The two images are related to TOTALITARIANISM and not authoritarianism. Inb4, yes, the former is an extreme form of the latter but it is also viewed as a distinct form of state-political order (there's a separate article on it, after all). My suggestion is to add Putin and/or someone simillar, for example, if you want there to be a main image about authoritarianism in this article.

- User:Ентусиастъ

Hi all! I just made an edit to this page where I added two images of Nazi Germany and North Korea as examples of authoritarian governments. User @Ентусиастъ: brought up an interesting point and reverted my addition of the images, on the grounds of the quote at the top. I wanted to start a discussion here as to whether this reversion was correct. If the reversion was correct, what would be a good example of a country that is authoritarian but not totalitarian for the images? TraderCharlotte (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Answering your first question - "Are all totalitarian governments authoritarian?" - as I said, totalitarianism is an extreme form of authoritarianism or even more correctly - it evolved from authoritarianism. If you saw the two respective articles, you alredy should know that totalitarianism seeks total control over all aspects of society, totalitarian rulers seek to reshape society into something new, there is a single political party allowed - the rulling one, there isn't allowed any political life outside it, the ruler always builds a personality cult around himself, mass use of state propaganda (mainly ideological) etc. Totalitarian rule is always a dictatorship, whereas authoritarian one is in most cases but not necessarily always.

In authoritarianism the said total control over society is absent. Under such a rule, the rulling elite just wants to hold it's political power and promotes some type of an ideology (like national conservatism and/or nationalism, for example, as in Russia's case) but it doesn't seek total control over society and indoctrination of it's citizens. A real political opposition may be allowed to exist. Also the repressions used in authoritarian states are in any case milder than in totalitarian ones. So, no, totalitarian governments are not authoritarian (again, then there wouldn't have existed two separate terms). Totalitarianism is just that - totalitarianism. Also, most totalitarian states were/are (if stil exist) socialist, only a small fraction were fascist and there was a single Nazi state (nazism, just like the case with authoritarianism and totalitarianism, evolved from fascism, the latter being moderate in many ways compared to the former).

On the second question - Putin (de-facto dictator), Lukashenko (self-declared dictator), Park Chung-hee (de-facto dictator), Nursultan Nazarbayev (de-facto dictator), Assad (de-facto dictator), Nicolás Maduro (de-facto dictator) are good examples of authoritarian rulers. Ентусиастъ/Entusiast (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

"An authoritarian regimes" - should be singular. I guess there's probably a good reason for this article being locked, but it sure does make the process for fixing a typo more difficult... 75.166.162.210 (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done CMD (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose merging Ideocracy into Authoritarianism. I think the content in Ideocracy can easily be explained in the context of Authoritarianism, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Authoritarianism. The concept "Ideocracy" is borderline notable. The content is only worth keeping as a brief mention in the Authoritarianism article. Thenightaway (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: Keep it separate. It has distinct features, there is notability and literature, also there is some overlap but just some. So no any reason to be merged. 178.223.52.216 (talk) 10:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• The Ideocracy article is overwhelmingly sourced to one State University of New York book, bordering on WP:REFSPAM. If there is anything important about the "ideocracy" concept, it can be covered in the context of authoritarianism. Thenightaway (talk) 11:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

No problem to stay at all as it is, and to have article about. More than enough notable. 178.223.52.216 (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Ahmed Sekou Touré

please change ((Ahmed Sekou Touré)) to ((Ahmed Sékou Touré)) 2601:541:4580:8500:E86D:7B38:4939:5344 (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. KRtau16 (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2022

Please add mahinda rajapaksha and Rajapaksha family government Sri Lanka 2004-2015 and 2019-2022 105.184.194.168 (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Try this link: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-84079-2_7 115.84.95.216 (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2022

I don't think Malaysia was authoritarian from 1957 to 2018. It was authoritarian when two Prime Ministers named Mahathir Mohamad and Najib Razak were in power. This means Malaysia was authoritarian between 1981 to 2003 and 2009 to 2018. I remember when Najib Razak was in power, he silenced and jailed his opponents as any other autocrat can do. He was also a corrupt man because he stole money from the 1MDB to buy his wife luxurious things like handbags and jewelry. His wife is like the Imelda Marcos of the 21st century. I only know Mahathir Mohamad for dominating politics and being a strong man. 115.84.95.216 (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

https://www.quora.com/Is-Najib-Razak-a-dictator

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44028023 115.84.95.135 (talk) 12:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing

I'm currently reviewing this list because a lot of it isn't true. As I said in a long edit summary, Poland is not authoritarian (Hungary isn't really either but it has elements of authoritarianism). Poland is rated as a "free" country by Freedom House, Hungary is "partly free" (although Hungary does rank as the most free "partly free" country on the list). Sure, there were a few sources, but plenty of sources have described the governments of other Western countries (especially America) generally considered to be free as "authoritarian", even though it's absolutely not. As for, American politics:

• Donald Trump:
  • Politico
  • The Conversation
  • Vanity Fair
  • The New York Magazine
  • Vox
  • The Washington Post
• Joe Biden:
  • Reason
  • National Interest
  • The Washington Times
  • The Republican Whip
  • The Guardian

I did a Google search and could also find some results using the term to describe the current and/or recent (i.e 2010s and 2020s) governments of other Western democracies typically described as free, including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, the European Union and its members, Japan, Nauru, New Zealand, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan and the United Kingdom, just to name a few. But these countries don't get listed because they simply aren't authoritarian, illiberal democracies or even semi-authoritarian democracies in any way, shape or form. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The question of whether Poland is or isn't authoritarian has nothing whatsoever to do with whether any other country is or isn't authoritarian. Poland's inclusion here is based on the sources given. Please address what these sources say and whether they are reliable or not. Only that really matters. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I looked at one of the sources for Poland, the article but Foreign Policy, which is titled "Poland and Hungary aren't democracies. They're authoritarian". Now, this is incorrect because Poland and Hungary both have free and fair elections. Now the second sentence will probably anger people: "Central Europe's populist revolt against the EU isn't about safeguarding the West. It's about rolling back freedoms and cozying up to Russia." Umm, these countries (most especially Poland) hate Russia. The Polish Government is the number-one supporter of Ukraine during the current war. This 2017 Gallup poll shows that only 9% of Poles have a favourable view of Vladimir Putin, which is the lowest percentage of the countries surveyed (Poland also has the highest percentage of countries surveyed that had an unfavourable view of him, at 85%). And this Pew Research Centre poll from 2022 shows that 97% of Poles had an unfavourable view of Russia (92% very unfavourable and 6% somewhat unfavourable), compared to just 2% that did. The same survey also shows that 97% of Poles have little or no confidence in Putin (94% no confidence and3% little confidence) and 2% have some or a lot of confidence in him. This is all despite PiS being in power. Therefore, I have just debunked that article. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Turkmenistan's authoritarian government

Turkmenistan is a pretty authoritarian country so I suggest adding Turkmenistan in the current examples tab. Some sources to back up my claims: https://carnegieendowment.org/2017/01/30/turkmenistan-at-twenty-five-high-price-of-authoritarianism-pub-67839 and https://freedomhouse.org/country/turkmenistan/freedom-world/2021. Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

At first, I thought Turkmenistan is a totalitarian country, but I think it's getting more authoritarian than totalitarian. 115.84.95.229 (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Was Brazil authoritarian under former President Jair Bolsanaro?

Jair Bolsonaro was the former President of Brazil from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2022. His rule was pretty authoritarian.Here's the link: https://en.as.com/latest_news/brazil-election-what-are-some-of-jair-bolsonaros-most-controversial-quotes-n/ 115.84.95.229 (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.84.94.118 (talk)

Finland

I think Finland can also be classified as authoritarian during Urho Kekkonen´s term, at least in the 70´s.--85.194.208.163 (talk) 11:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any academic sources saying that or is that Wikipedia:original research? Dronebogus (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, since 1973, he extended his presidential term. 115.84.95.229 (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

That’s still not remotely useable. Dronebogus (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I am sure there are RS that discuss this. He seems to be described as an authoritarian (example) and after his tenure and death there were constitutional reforms to significantly weaken the powers of the president. Whether Finland belongs in the list of historical examples as an authoritarian state, I am not sure (maybe not). Mellk (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't have academic sources, but i think that could be original research. 82.128.136.247 (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Mexico's time being authoritarian.

I suggest adding the times Mexico was authoritarian. When it was under Santa Anna during 1833-1855 (He left office and came back later quite often), Porfirio Díaz 1876-1911(He left office 2 times to let his allies have office but later he would come back), and the political party PRI (which ruled Mexico without leaving office from 1929-2000 when it lost the presidential election that year). Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Is Indonesia becoming authoritarian again?

This year, Indonesia's parliament passed a new penal code which criminalized premarital sex. The new criminal code recriminalized insulting the President, state institutions, and Indonesia’s national ideology (a.k.a Pancasila). Some sources say Indonesia is becoming authoritarian again. Here are the sources: https://www.fairplanet.org/editors-pick/indonesias-new-criminal-code-is-a-step-toward-authoritarianism/ and https://thediplomat.com/2022/12/indonesias-latest-tilt-toward-authoritarianism/ 115.84.95.229 (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Interesting Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Since I am from that area of the world, I would like to correct you that only Republika Srpska is authoritarian. Every nation in B&H has their leaders which behave in similar if not same manner. Try to make a better research on the topic and then write an article. This way, you (whoever wrote this) are misleading the readers. 188.169.201.122 (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

"World"

Who decided to add "earth" as a example of authoritarianism? Like why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk • contribs) 04:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

What on earth is "bgc"? Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Am I an idiot and missing something or what? Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

East Germany

Wasn't East Germany authoritarian?--82.128.136.247 (talk) 13:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Split??

I suggest we split the Examples area into a new article, it is large and vague, but has enough referencing. EXAMPLE:List of totalitarian regimesMiggly69 (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2023

Please change

"The foundations of stable authoritarian rule are that the authoritarian prevents contestation from the masses and other elites. The authoritarian regime may use co-optation or repression (or carrots and sticks) to prevent revolts.[43][44] Authoritarian rule entails a balancing act whereby the ruler has to maintain the support of other elites (frequently through the distribution of state and societal resources) and the support of the public (through distribution of the same resources): the authoritarian rule is at risk if the balancing act is lopsided, as it risks a coup by the elites or an uprising by the mass public.[45][46]"

to

"For an authoritarian regime to maintain stability, leaders need to sustain positive good will or avoid push back from masses and other elites . To avoid contestation, different regimes (usually categorized on a scale of how ‘authoritarian’ they/ from where leaders derive power) pursue varying paths . The method of determining which path a regime takes can be summed up with selectorate theory which states that within any electorate, there is a selectorate or the subset of people who have legitimate say in choosing a leader and a winning coalition for the members of the selectorate a leader needs support from to maintain power . Since a leaders’ main goal is assumed to be keeping power, their interactions with elites and the masses and subsequent allocation of private/public goods is often dictated by the size and loyalty of the winning coalition .

A leader focuses on elites and gives out private goods usually when the winning coalition is small and loyal, meaning to keep power, they need to keep a ‘select few’ content . In these situations, the masses are often ignored meaning less public goods are usually provided . Instead interaction between leaders and commoners often takes the form of repression or essentially pushing down any (small) number of opposers that may pop up . However, when the winning coalition is larger or there is less loyalty, a leader is usually forced to pay more attention to the masses and provide a greater number of political goods . This is because uprisings can be more powerful and larger in size and therefore appeasement is necessary to quash them early on . In situations like this political control or interaction often takes the form of coercive destruction of materials and/or indoctrination (often via education) . For leaders to maintain their power, the way they interact with masses and other elites is important and usually inextricably linked with selectorate theory . If leaders mess up balancing the needs of the people who keep their position, there is high risk of revolt from elites or uprisings from the masses, therefore striking a proper balance of give and take is integral to avoid loss of power " Nehag24 (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Hello Nehag24, and welcome to Wikipedia! I have decided to decline this edit request. Your proposed change is quite verbose, and you have not provided - nor can I derive - a rationale for why such a change would benefit the article. Feel free to make a new request (or re-open this one) with a rationale. This way reviewing editors can see where you are coming from. —Sirdog (talk) 06:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2023

I want to add information about the types of authoritarian regimes mentioned under Typologies/Subtypes (after the Barbara Geddes paragraph starting with “According to…”). Below are the paragraphs I want to add:

Dominant party regimes or single party dictatorships, are authoritarian regimes “in which a single political party controls leadership selection and policy.” Within single-party dictatorships, other parties may legally exist and participate in elections, however “true political power lies with the dominant party.” Structurally, these regimes are the most similar to democracies, and tend to rely on political control to achieve long-term social compliance, thus utilizing less violent methods. Single-party dictatorships may also use infiltration methods of political control, (usually more common in autocratic leaning regimes), in order to discourage opposition and mobilize supporters. In turn, infiltration methods increase preference falsification by creating a false curtain of support among the population, thus aiding the survival of this already longeve regime.

In military regimes or dictatorships, the military is the institution in control within the regime. Military officers then, hold power over who holds leadership positions as well as over the policy processes. It is important to note that in military dictatorships, the military elites are powerful enough to constrain the actions of the regime leader depending on the extent to which the leader depends on the military to enforce repression. An example of a contemporary military dictatorship can be seen in Thailand under the Palang Pracharath party in power since 1969. Compscienjoyer (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done AirmanKitten203 (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

References

 Note: This looks good to me, but it's quite a substantial addition, so I'd like input from at least one other editor. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Misleading scope

This article currently describes authoritarianism as a "political system", but this doesn't accurately describe the full scope of the concept. Authoritarianism is approach to politics or a political style. The problem is that this article covers authoritarian regimes and authoritarian forms of government instead of the entire concept of authoritarianism. To use the examples given by Glasius (2018): Rodrigo Duterte, Narendra Modi, Viktor Orban, and Donald Trump are all considered "authoritarian". But you'd be hard-pressed to argue that they rule(d) over an authoritarian regime. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Then why "Rodrigo Duterte" is removed from this page? 115.84.88.190 (talk) 04:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2023

Pita won Thailand's general election this year. So, if Prayut leaves the office this year, put Thailand into the former authoritarian countries list. 115.84.88.190 (talk) 02:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: – Callmemirela 🍁 14:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Classification of an authoritarian state

In the article several states are listed as authoritarian or formerly authoritarian. However there exists no consistant definition nor common factor for the listed states to be labeled as such. Israel and Hungary for example, these nations are democracies and multipartystates. If these nations can be argued as to being auhtoritarian one could categorise any other democratic nation into the same category. It seems that the list is politicized and not impartial. I would suggest removing it and or changeing it into a more consistant format where the term authoritarian is clearly defined. Superpig05 (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Both Hungary and Israel have been characterized by various commentators as illiberal or "backsliding" democracies. In any case, we go by published, reliable sources, not armchair logical analyses. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Gabon

There's a coup in Gabon that ousted its "authoritarian" leader, Ali Bongo. Should Gabon remain on the current authoritarian list or should it be moved to the former authoritarian list? 202.137.157.50 (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Brunei?

Is The Sultan of brunei Authoritatian or Just Totalitarian? Should It Be Added? Any Sources? Does This Count If You Literally Have nearly more than 60 years of martial law? 103.196.139.77 (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, martial law is still there in Brunei. I'm still not sure how to describe Brunei. If Brunei is authoritarian, why all Bruneians didn't make public protests against their monarch? Why there's only RTB? Remember, an authoritarian country is when a political leader wants political power as well as controlling politics. A totalitarian country is when a leader takes full control on the country and its people. So, I think Brunei shouldn't be on the list. 115.84.88.73 (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thaksin Shiniwatra

I think Thaksin should be on the authoritarian list because during his administration, he launched a war on drugs in 2003 as well as being accused for human rights abuses against Muslims. In the 2006 snap election, he likely rigged the election because the party contesting was the Thai Rak Thai Party. What do you think? 115.84.88.73 (talk) 05:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Japan

I think Japan was authoritarian during the 1930s and the 1940s due to military influence in mainstream politics. During WWII, Japan seem to pretty authoritarian since there were rebels in places Japan invaded. What do you think? 103.43.79.88 (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that's not necessary because Japan was de jure absolute monarchy then. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 05:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

If I may ask, why would Saudi Arabia and Oman which are absolute monarchies be allowed to be included as well as several Constitutional Monarchies in the middle east but not the Empire of Japan that was an absolute monarchy but became recognized as a totalitarian military dictatorship and fascist state not be allowed to be included? Also USA under Donald Trump needs to be removed, he has had responsibility for the democratic backsliding but the USA was definitely not an authoritarian state under him. TYMR (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@UA0Volodymyr Japan during the 1930s & 1940s was de jure a parliamentary constitutional monarchy. Rotary Engine ^talk 02:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

United States

It says that former authoritarian regimes include the US under Donald Trump from 2017-2021. By this pages own methodology, using the democracy index, the United States at that time was still well within the range or Democratic countries and nowhere near the authoritarian regimes which they define as the basic denial of most political and most civil rights which was not the case in the US from 2017-21. Trump was a populist which in many instances causes Democratic backsliding but this does not make a country authoritarian, an authoritarian country can be both authoritarian and have a populist leader but it would be a mistake to conflate the two. If we also included Democratic countries with populist leaders then there would be a lot more countries on here. To me if we keep this here, it shows a significant bias on the part of Wikipedia for disregarding the most authoritative index for determine democracy to date. I would take it off because as recorded, the United States during this time was still a Democratic nation after trumps election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.87.171 (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I say we should change this immediately. 2001:48F8:4028:1C23:8947:E12A:26F9:9EF1 (talk) 22:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I definitely third this opinion in arguing that the label on the US as "authoritarian" during 2017-2021 is at least a gross exaggeration and at most blatantly editorializing the events of recent American politics. In assigning the United States the label of an authoritarian regime under Donald Trump following the 2016 presidential election, it completely disregards the system of checks and balances in the US Congress and Judiciary which limit populist politicians from garnering total authoritarian holds over the rule of law in America like we can see in other nations where the powers of the executive are ill-defined. While this piece of information cites the article "Democratic Backsliding in the United States", this article cites several executive actions which occurred for several administrations and evidence to suggest that Trump's administration had necessarily accelerated anti-democratic agendas is shaky at best and mostly hinges on the events of January 6th, 2021, which were in the final days of his presidency and ongoing court proceedings as of October 2023 have not fully determined whether or not the former president was directly culpable for the Capitol attack. This statement also completely ignores the fact that the Democratic party had gained control over the House of Representatives in 2018, which stands in contrast to the fact that a hallmark of authoritarian regimes according to the page is hampered legitimacy of opposition parties in elections, which was proved untrue in 2018 and then when he lost the presidency to Democratic candidate Joe Biden in the 2020 elections. The presence of a populist politician can be damaging to the political process of a nation, however, given a shaky foundation of editorialized politics, does not uphold Wikipedia's stance on rhetorical neutrality, especially considering recency bias when it comes to modern presidential administrations. TieDye06 (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the entry, as there are three users in agreement here and it has been nearly a month since the last comment with no objections. For the record, I agree that the United States under Trump should not be listed, as Trump having authoritarian tendencies is not enough to turn to US into an authoritarian regime during this period. I agree with the preceeding comments. Combustible Vulpex (talk) 12:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources

The section of the article titled "Examples" would benefit from references provided by expert WP:SECONDAY sources, rather than the many newspaper articles. For example, the opinion section of Al Jazeera for one. There are many more. Journalistic sensationalism does not equate to an academic standard. 182.239.152.166 (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Israel

I know that most people here will consider Israel as an "authoritarian regime" after the 2023 judicial reforms but do we think it's appropriate to label it as such during ALL of Netanyahu's terms. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to label it as being an authoritarian regime from 2023 onwards? ReymunNobleJacinto (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

While we're at it, should we also add that the PLO only has de facto control over the zones recognised as part of the Palestinian West Bank during the Oslo Accords and that Hamas is the de facto authoritarian regime in Gaza? ReymunNobleJacinto (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so. Slimsilkyweave (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

More authoritarian regimes not mentioned

I think there are some more authoritarian regimes that must be mentioned in the examples:

---

The Kingdom of Nepal

1. Panchayat system under the absolute Kings Mahendra and Birendra from 1961 until the kingdom became a constitutional monarchy in 1990.

2. Under King Gyanendra from 2002 or 2005 to 2006.

---

Pakistan

1. Military dictatorships

Muhammad Ayub Khan (1958-1969)

General Yahya Khan (1969-1971)

General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq (1977-1988)

General Pervez Musharraf (1999-2007)

---

Bangladesh (for historical examples only, not for the current example)

1. Mostly under a presidential system and military dictatorships.

Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League under Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (1975) (Note: Since January 25, 1975, Prime Minister Sheikh Mujibur Rahman became President after the fourth amendment of the Constitution of Bangladesh turned Bangladesh into a presidential republic as well as establishing a one-party state a month later due to an ongoing conflict between Mujib's goverment and radical leftists. He declared state of emergency at the same year. he remained an authoritarian leader until he and his family (except his only two daughters) was assassinated in a bloody coup on August 15, 1975.)

2. Khondaker Mostaq Ahmad (from 15 August 1975 until he was ousted by a coup on 6 November 1975)

3. Chief Martial Law Administrator and President Abu Sadat Mohammad Sayem (6 November 1975 to 21 April 1977)

4. Chief Martial Law Administrator and President Ziaur Rahman (21 April 1977 until his assassination on 30 May 1981)

5. Hussain Muhammad Ershad from 1982 to 1990.

India

1. Indira Gandhi (Note: Only from 1975 to 1977, see The Emergency

---

Russian Empire (I guess only the semi-constitutional monarchy era because all Russian Emperors are absolute monarchs, but in 1905, it became a semi-constitutional monarchy until the monarchy was abolished in 1917, and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia was the only semi-constitutional monarch in Russia. If you think the House of Romanov is always authoritarian, whether fully absolute or semi-constitutional, then I guess the mention it from the founding of the Russian Empire till the end of the empire in 1917. Otherwise, you don't have to put the Russian Empire on the list of historical examples.)

---

Nigeria (under military dictatorship) I guess.

---

Also, I think you should add Thailand's Thaksin Shinawatra into the list of historical examples of authoritarianism. Even though he's democratically elected, but his extrajudicial killings during 'War on Drugs' (similar to the Philippines' Drug war under Rodrigo Duterte, another leader mentioned as authoritarian in the historical examples), as well his possible oppression on the country's Muslim population and the 2006 Thai general election, which looked like he rigged it, made him authoritarian. You can take a look at the links: [1], [2], and [3]. Slimsilkyweave (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)