Blog post due at 11:55pm on Sep. 22 and comment due at 11:55pm on Sep. 25.
Nondemocratic Rule
1. What are some of the essential differences between democracies and authoritarian regimes?
2. What are authoritarian leaders mainly concerned in their political rule?
Political Culture
3. Do you agree with Huntington that today’s world is increasingly characterized by a “clash of civilizations”?
4. How does political culture differ from political ideology?
1. What are some of the essential differences between democracies and authoritarian regimes?.
ReplyDeleteBy definition nondemocratic regimes are " those in which a political regime is controlled by a small group of individuals who exercise power over the state without being constitutionally responsible to the public. This definition can also serve as a difference between democracies and authoritarian regimes because in authoritarian regimes the public doesn't play a role in selecting or removing people from office. These types of regimes has no problem with creating policies that dictate to people. These types of regimes eliminate liberties such as freedom of speech and assembly. Violence and surveillance are used to enforce public obedience. There are two reasons why these types of regimes exists. They exist to limit freedom in order to increase economic equality such as communism. Or they exist in order to have control and power over the people.
While nondemocratic regimes have a select group that control the state and are not responsible to the public, democratic regimes have a group that control the state but they are responsible to the public and the public can elect to have the person stay in office or not. In a democratic regime political power is exercised either directly or indirectly through participation, competition, and liberty. In a democratic regime the executive branch can be split into two roles the head of state and head of government. The head of state symbolizes the people both nationally and internationally. They can be either a monarch or president. The head of government deals with the everyday task of running the state. The prime minister can serve in this role. In some countries these roles are either combined or kept separate. These are the essential difference between democratic and authoritarian regimes.
This was very well said and a great way to highlight the major differences between authoritarian and democratic regimes. Something that I have always been fascinated with in my studies of world history is the significance and influence that authoritarian regimes have had on the shaping of our world. Men like Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler, while many view as evil, terrible men, were also fantastic leaders, arguably two of the best the world has ever seen. Authoritarian governments prove to be efficient, with fewer channels to go through, they allow themselves to operate quickly with effectiveness. However, these regimes have always seemed to be abusive and only benefit a select group, not the entire state. In contrast, many democratic regimes are viewed more positively in western history, but have never had the type of power that authoritarian regimes have. It is really a very delicate balance that will be interesting to see evolve in the future as new regimes and leaders come to power throughout the world.
DeleteEconomically this is also a very interesting contrast, as economic equality at its core makes a lot of sense, but is a bit idealistic at times. This is really a case by case basis, but countries without a history of economic equality would always have a difficult transition if they chose to do so. On the other hand, countries with a background in socialism and communism have proven to operate effectively for themselves, and become major players in international politics - such as China for example. The differences and variety of ideologies around the world is something that will always be fascinating to follow.
2. What are authoritarian leaders mainly concerned in their political rule?
ReplyDeleteThey are mainly concerned with maintaining their power over the people they govern and keeping the peace. As an authoritarian regime, they have no constitutional duty to the people they govern. Their goal is to stay in power. They often accomplish this task by taking away freedom from the people they govern. For instance, authoritarian regimes may deny people the right to outwardly protest or criticize the government. This makes it very hard for anti-government groups to organize since it must be done in secrecy and the members of the group will be prosecuted if they are found out.
Authoritarian governments often keep a close eye on their subjects to prevent anti-government movements from starting up. If the government can "nip it in the bud" before the movement gains popularity, they will remain unchallenged as the authority--and that is their main goal as an authoritarian regime. One upside is that their is less war and dissent because the authoritarian government is actively trying to suppress insurgency. But this is often done at the expense of peoples' individual freedoms (such as freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, and freedom to peacefully protest) and therefore at the expense of the peoples' happiness.
One of the other positive aspects of authoritarian rule is how quickly decisions can be made. In a democratic rule an idea for a law is brought forward. A group of people discuss if the law is even worth sending forward for a vote. Once they decide if it is, the law has to wait until a vote is held. If the vote is won, it then takes a long time to get the details listed out before the law is even enforced.
DeleteAn authoritarian leader can say this is the law that needs to be put into place. It is put into place as the leader sees fit and people the follow the rule regardless if they like it, think it is appropriate, or is even a feasible law.
I agree with the statements you made about authoritarian rule. The leaders of these regimes in my opinion are more impressed by the power that this positions hold. The fact that the can make rules without basically any consequences from the public proves that fact. They say that this is done to help prevent capitalism and promote equality but history shows that if you give a person two much power then somewhere down the road power will be abused. Take for instance Hitler, he used his enormous political influence into making people believe that sending millions of Jews to their deaths was acceptable. It was done in the name of racial prejudice.
DeleteI am responding to the statement that there are positive aspects to authoritarian rule. In my opinion there is no positive aspects to authoritarian . I think this way because I believe that government should be run for the people, by the people, and in the best interest of the people. Controlling every aspect of a persons life even down to individual freedoms, such as freedom of assembly, is going to far. All this is done because the leader is scared that he could lose a little power. This is not someone who is concerned about what is best for the people that he governs. They are concerned with the power that the position holds. This is why they will do everything they can to hold on to that power.
While authoritarian leadership can be beneficial at times, it is often the case that it's more problematic. This type of decision-making is easily abused, and authoritarian leaders are often viewed as bossy and controlling. Because authoritarian leaders make decisions without consulting the group, many group members may resent the leader because they are unable to contribute ideas.
Delete3. Do you agree with Huntington that today’s world is increasingly characterized by a “clash of civilizations”?
ReplyDeleteSamuel Huntington's “Clash of Civilizations” theory describes the belief that people's religious and cultural identities will be a main source of conflict in the post-Cold War world. Huntington's thesis divides the world into nine major civilizations – Western, Orthodox, Islamic, Latin American, Hindu, African, Sinic, Japanese, and Buddhist. This theory provides six explanations for why civilizations will clash, as well as the belief that a West vs. the Rest conflict will continuously evolve over time. I firmly agree with Huntington’s theory, as we see a clash of civilizations creating conflict every day in our current society.
Two of the six explanations that Huntington provides in his thesis highlight why I agree with this theory as a whole. First of all, societal differences stem from things such as culture, tradition, history, and most importantly, religion. These are aspects of society that have developed over a lengthy history and will not quickly change. These strong rooted elements create a conflicting foundation for individual societies, such as the storied conflicts between Christians and Muslims in today's world. People do not gravitate towards change, and will ultimately fight for their individualism and history before succumbing to new societal beliefs. The second reason argues that the post-Cold War world saw the peak of power in the West. In the non-West, a new found desire to shape society in a non-Western manner is growing, and with the will and resources to do so, the non-West has vastly grown in world power and resources over the course of my life thus far. Countries such as China and India have ever growing strength in numbers and resources, gaining more and more influence over western states. This is a trend that could easily become a world conflict, and we see the foundation of such a conflict being built today. We also operate in an inter-related world will international business and economic fluidity being a major factor in corporate operations. The world has never been more connected with as many relationships being tested every day, creating an environment for conflict to brew. Few countries are isolated, and with more and more players entering the game everyday, a clashing of civilizations is unavoidable in today's world.
Your explanations for agreeing with Huntington's theory are quite clearly seen in our world today. In your conclusion you raise a good point that the world is as connected as it's ever been. This fact could also be used in arguing against the theory at hand. Many organizations fighting for world peace are just as accessible to most societies where the internet is available. However it is seemingly unarguable that the number of people who use the internet to seek out means of achieving a more unified world is much less than those who do not.
Delete4. How does political culture differ from political ideology?
ReplyDeletePolitical ideology and political culture are two closely related, but very different, ideas. They are both based on political ideas, cognitions, and values. However, they play different roles in the political landscape, and come about in different ways. Political culture is the result of a society's socialization process; that is, it becomes embedded within those who are raised in a certain society or civilization. Political ideology, on the other hand, is a set of beliefs that is arrived at through intellectual processes and efforts. A political ideology may attract anyone, and anyone may adopt a particular ideology, but it is not ubiquitously ingrained like a political culture is. An ideology provides certain values and beliefs about politics, while a political culture provides the entire framework in which these ideologies exist.
For example, I may have a strong belief in a conservative ideology. My mother may believe in democratic socialism, my father may believe in conservative ideologies, and my sister may be a libertarian. We all agree that liberty, opportunity, and justice are some of the highest virtues and that these ideals should be achieved by our government and political system. We share this belief because we all exist within the same political culture; in this case, we all view our ideas within the American political culture, which has taught us our whole lives that these principles are fundamental rights to all people. However, we each adhere to a different philosophy about how these things should be achieved. My sister, the libertarian, believes that the best way to reach the goals instilled by our political culture is to have the least amount of government involvement possible. This is her ideology. However, my socialist mother would believe that the best way to ensure the ideals of the American political culture are achieved is through high levels of government intervention. We disagree on the means, but all observe the same values due to our shared political culture.
Well said. This is a very thorough explanation of political culture versus political ideology. I was having difficulty making the distinction between the two terms so thank you. : ) Taking from your blog, political culture is the sum of actions of the people of a country, the attitudes that drive their responses to events, and their expectations of what they may do. While political ideology is a set of related beliefs about political theory and policy held by an individual or group of individuals such as conservatism, socialism, and liberalism (to name a few).
DeleteAlso, I commend you for using family members with differing party affiliations to further explain political ideologies as this is indicative of the people within our nation. I believe we can have varying opinions and political orientations and remain “family” because we share a political culture therefore our core beliefs are generally the same. It’s to what degree and how we prioritize those beliefs that pull us in one direction or the other towards our political ideology. With the U.S. having only three political parties this can be problematic when ones priorities are split. For instance, a person might be aware of and extremely empathetic to social issues (Democrat) yet they are equally concerned with the state of our economy and believe in free markets (Republican). For this reason, introducing additional political parties into our political system is beyond past due.
DeleteHow does political culture differ from the political ideology?
ReplyDeletePolitical Culture is the overall pattern in society of beliefs, attitudes and values of the political system. A study of behavioral perspective, using studies of individual’s attitudes. Different ways of thinking and feelings, more emotional than rational. Able to relate and react to different situations. It’s expressed in the areas of advertising, art, campaigns, literature, ceremonies, museums, and television. (Ross, 2009)
Political Ideology is a clear and detail system of ideas, attitudes and beliefs that constitute political legitimacy A pattern of social arrangements, seeking to promote and maintain. Is not a political culture, a partisanship or a policy position. An action program indicating the goals, ideas and tactics by the state.
The difference is Political Culture we believe that everyone in the United States shares a political culture. We believe in democracy and everyone has the right to be heard. Vs. Political Ideology where we tend to have disagreements. We have set attitudes about what the government should do.
I agree with your post. Our government doesn't consider that sometimes we are conservative and sometimes we are liberal depending on the subject matter. the government attempts to keep us in a box and our attitudes shouldn't shift, when in reality it does.
Delete2. What are authoritarian leaders mainly concerned in their political rule?
ReplyDeleteAuthoritarian leaders mainly concern themselves with power over the people they govern. The government governs without the consent of its people. An authoritarian government can spy on people, listen to phone conversations and read personal mail or emails. They are able to arrest someone for crimes such as insulting the president or rallying against something you don't agree with.
Authoritarian governments also does not have to share with the people what the government is doing, their plans or reasons behind decisions. They do not have to share records about finances or military actions and can detain people who are thought to be inquiring into them. People can be arrested and the person may not even know why. The information regarding their trial may not even be made public. The person arrested may not even be able to defend themselves if it is what the government chooses. Depending on the offense the lawyers defending them can also be prosecuted. Prisoners can be held for long periods of time or indefinitely. The government will normally own or control the social media. This allows them to control the information that is being presented to the general population.
There are a couple positive things about authoritarian government. One of the major benefits of this kind of government is the ability for quick decision making and the ability to put into effect the changes needed. The other benefit is the ability of the government to keep two feuding groups at rest from fear of the government stepping in.
I agree with your post. Authoritarian Leaders are mainly concern with power. We are only identify to them as a social security number. We have no privacy in this country. Yes, we do have freedom of speech, but you have to be careful on what you say. It may cost you a night in jail.
DeleteI agree with a lot of this post in the the general statements you make hold some weight. But I'm not sure about a few of the claims--such as "Authoritarian leaders mainly concern themselves with power over the people they govern. The government governs without the consent of its people.". To make such a statement, you must have a clear definition of what you mean by ruling with the consent of the people. I think authoritarian government, by definition, is not an evil thing or bad for the people necessarily. But because power is so centralized, it can easily lead to abuse of power
DeleteDemocratic nations make a clear separation between state and society and put many systems in place so that the government does not gain too much control of the nation. The idea is that through checks and balances we can regulate government control and the government will work for the people ans well as be run by the people. When creating this separation of powers a government is divided, such as the United States government created the Legislative, judicial, and Executive branches. By making a distinction between the three each branch can keep tabs on the other while also making decisions that are specific to each particular area. Not to say that controversy and corruption does not occur in democracies however no system is absolute, or perfect. Authoritarian systems do quite the opposite by combining society and government into one political engine that has no distinction. All types of coercion can happen without having any boundaries to stop them, society has no say in government action and become slaves to their totalitarian leaders. The government controls all phases of life from economics, politics, culture, while restricting freedom of speech or any other freedoms for that matter. Party systems are combined into one where people are forced to follow the rules and regulations of that one single system.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the distinction you made between democracies and authoritarian regimes. I thought that your comment was especially intriguing regarding how no system or organizational structure of government is perfect and that issues such as corruption and coercion could potentially be found in both democracies and dictatorships alike. This idea will allow us, as students, to really look with a critical lens at the various types of power systems and diversionary tactics that are used by government officials throughout the world and it will additionally allow us to identify weaknesses in diverse government organizations which could potentially give rise to a higher occurrence of institutional corruption. I also agreed with your point because it aligned with my reasoning about how authoritarian governments seek to control all aspects of their countries' society in order to build a political engine that consolidates their power through one streamlined system.
DeleteHow does political culture differ from political ideology?
ReplyDeletePolitical ideology is the shared pattern of beliefs of political values of our government role. For instance,our American government consist of Democrats and Republicans.Democrats are said to be liberals and Republicans are said be conservatives . The word liberal is used to define the ideology of the party. With democrats being charged with this title, it is said they promote socialism, gay rights, capitalism should have a ceiling, and our government should uphold and improve programs for the poor.
Republican ideology is said to in-house the definition of capitalism with no limits. They are said to believe that the market can run itself, and there should not a ceiling on capitalism.They are also accused to line themselves up with big corporations. Republicans are charged with believing that poor are in the situation their in due to individuals being lazy, and that our government should play a limited role in assisting them.
Both democratic and republican parties are pushed upon citizens through political culture.Political culture is defined as the widely shared beliefs, values, and norms about how citizens relate to the government. Republican culture consist of being against everything democrats stand for and democrats oppose everything republicans stand for. The culture for democrats is to be an advocate for the average person. Democratic culture is said to be open to all with no judgement. Republican culture is said be a closed society, an exclusive club. It is built for the rich and or radical extremist. Both republicans and democrats have mascots to distinguish the parties, republicans mascot is an elephant, and the democrats are represented by a donkey.When we as citizens choose to follow either party we also choose a mascot. This is how we connect to our government, by feeling like we are apart of a team. Political ideology is the thoughts and beliefs of a particular political movement, and the political culture is how we move as a political group within a particular political movement.
I agree with you. Political Ideology is a set of ethical ideas and principles to help influence a social movement. It is ideal for these movements to improve the poor and with the belief of how society should work and with that being said, in a certain order,
DeleteAlthough Political culture and political ideology both are beliefs about government and its interactions with people, Ideology is individual. It orders an individual thoughts. Ideology often form groups, but an ideology guides individual political thought. Political culture is shared in my opinion. Many people in the United States are classic liberals (meaning they focus on the rights of individuals). Many people in the United States are liberals because the value of the individual is part of our political culture.
Hey Scott!
DeleteWhen I was looking for the answer to the same question, I looked at some YouTube videos. One that I found kind of interesting was this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz-szuwRgAE This had a pretty good explanation of the differences and similarities, along with some pictures. =) I think that it is difficult to be placed in a specific political culture. Different people have different views on every subject. One could be on one "side" on the gay rights issue for example, but be on the far other "side" on an issue such as prayer in school. I have never really been in a particular party, but know those who are not politically educated and still vote for whichever party because that is what their parents did, and that was what they were taught to believe in and vote for. I would much rather someone be educated on the issues and the candidates for an informed decision to be made rather than voting out of habit.
4. How does political culture differ from political ideology?
ReplyDeletePolitical culture and political ideology are both belief systems made up of cognitions, values and emotions. Political culture relates directly with the values and beliefs held within different societies while political ideology is a coherent set of ideas which identify the role of the state and the goals pursued by it, as well as political legitimacy.
The culture of each individual society defines its own interest. For example Americans have it engrained within them to highly value liberty, individualism, and justice. Americans are defined by these aspects of political culture. In societies where political ideologies are defined by Islam, the valued aspects of political culture are defined by the Islamic religion alone. Defining aspects of political culture in Islamic societies are created by the Quran being their source of ethics. Because of their belief that humans are evil by nature, societies of this political ideology value prayer, fasting, and a return to religion above those aspects of political culture valued by Americans. As a matter of fact, societies of Islamic ideology actually value the rejection of Westernization highly among their defining aspects of political culture.
Each different political ideology is made up of its own set of ideas that outline what constitutes political legitimacy, rank political values, and indicates the goals, ideals and tactics that are to be pursued by the state as well as the citizens. Political culture defines boundaries within each ideology, and organizes actions within groups, as well as between them.
How does political culture differ from political ideology?
ReplyDeleteThe way I view political culture and political ideology are very similar but only vary in the vastness of influence. When looking at a given culture, let's say America, ingrained in our culture is the ideas of democracy, civil rights and freedoms, competition(market economy). These are the beliefs that our American culture is based upon.
When you break things down into a smaller region/state/ or society. You see more defined political ideas, some dealing with religious beliefs, economic necessities, available resources, many factors can influence their political ideals. These differing and collective ideals contribute to the overall political culture/beliefs for a given country or state.
To sum this up, political ideals look out for a given groups interest but in turn contribute and follow the overall political culture for a country/nation.
4. How does political culture differ from political ideology?
ReplyDeletePolitical culture is the beliefs held by all in how the government should run and what we expect to be provided with. This would include liberty, equality, justice, democracy, etc. Political culture is the actual values, attitudes, and beliefs that most people hold in various societies.
Political ideology is our individual beliefs about what policies government should pursue. Ideology is to suggest motives for an action. Ideology also reflects the intellectual efforts of individuals rather that the entire culture.
Cognition, values, and emotions are valued in both political culture and political ideology, but the difference is how these are taken into account and how they are measured. Are these emotions the feelings of the majority, or just a few? How much value is placed on this groups' cognition over these individuals' cognitive abilities?
2. What are authoritarian leaders mainly concerned in their political rule?
ReplyDeleteNoncompetitive authoritarian leaders are generally going to be concerned with dominating and controlling society while seeking to direct the culture and the overall social interaction in such a way that solidifies their power and roots out any dissent whether it’s individual or group disagreement with established ideology in control. These leaders, while predominantly concerned with maintaining their absolute control over the country, seek to convey to the population that individual rights will not be considered or granted and instead will favor to contribute towards the entire country. As previously mentioned, these leaders will rule through their political ideology instead of laws and those leaders controlling the government will be considered by the moral authority on all of the legal and social interactions among the populace.
Authoritarian regimes are characterized by their lack of effective procedures with which to select political leaders. Therefore leaders who assume power in this type of government, generally don’t concede power unless forced to do so. Most significantly, as Kesselman et al. relates, “the legal system is highly politicized and the judiciary is not an independent branch of government capable of checking the power of the state and protecting the rights of citizens; and coercion and violence are part of the political process.” (p. 28) This is illustrative of how authoritarian leaders, consolidate their power and make it incredibly difficult for the public under an authoritarian rule to experience social justice.
I agree with your assessment of authoritarian regimes' primary concerns. The idea is to dominate every aspect of the society to maintain power. As you have alluded to, and as we have discussed in class, a very predominant rhetoric that is used to achieve this is that of the "greater good". The people have only the rights that do not conflict with the greater good, and, according to an authoritarian regime, what's good for the regime IS the greater good. A truly terrifying aspect of this is how ingrained this thinking can become. History has provided us with many examples, some of which we have discussed in class, of a citizenry being brainwashed into believing that an individual has no rights compared to the greater good, the good of the country, and the good of the regime. This is a great technique for an authoritarian regime, who seeks only to stay in power.
DeleteWhat are some of the essential differences between democracies and authoritarian regimes?
ReplyDeleteWith democracies the people conduct free and fair elections of government representatives who govern the people by constitution for a specified period of time. Constitution limits the power of democratic governments in order to protect the rights of the people. In the United States, governmental power is further limited by the distribution of power between federal institutions, the federal government, and the 50 states of the union. According to our textbook, the goal of democracy is individual liberty with freedom from unwarranted demands by the state. The purpose of democracy is to accomplish the objectives that best serve the interests of the people, in terms of their human rights, living standards, and quality of life standards, and that reflect their highest aspirations.
In contrast with democracies, the leaders of authoritarian regimes are typically either voted in through unfair/fixed elections or gain control through violence by overthrowing the previous ruler. Without competitive elections, leaders remain in place until they step down or are overthrown. Authoritarian rulers operate above the law and retain immense power. Combining immense power and authority with the lack of constitutional limitations lends to mistreatment of the powerless and corruption. Unlike democratic leaders who need electoral support, authoritarian leaders need the support of other power-holders such as business, Church, and regional bosses. This is where corruption comes into play as leaders exchange economic reward for political support from other power-holders. Further, without constitutional constraint to limit the power of authoritarian leaders they are free to rule as they see fit with little to no regard for human rights.
What are authoritarian leaders mainly concerned in their political rule?
ReplyDeleteLeaders who get this rating are very much task oriented and are hard on their workers. There is little or no allowance for cooperation or collaboration. Authoritarian leaders mostly display these characteristics: they are very strong on schedules; they expect people to do what they are told without question or debate; when something goes wrong they tend to focus on who is to blame rather than concentrate on exactly what went wrong and how to prevent it; they are intolerant of what they see as dissent, thus it is difficult for their subordinates to contribute or develop.