EBP Article: What Authoritarianism is … and is not: A Practice Perspective

300413639

How should we go about defining and conceptualizing authoritarianism? The article by Marlies Glasius attempts to answer this by defining three issues with the way political scientists currently define and analyse authoritarianism, followed by two sections that differentiate authoritarian practices and illiberal practices. The purpose of this piece is to transform the definition of authoritarianism from a negative one to a positive one by giving it unique characteristics rather than defining it by the absence of free and fair elections. Throughout the piece he makes references to the practices of countries and transnational actors rather than creating a case study of one country, in order to modify the regime classification system being used currently. It serves as a critical account of the current state of authoritarian studies and aims to guide scholars in the field towards a new approach on the subject.

His three main arguments against the current classification of authoritarianism are that we define the term negatively rather than positively, that there is too much focus placed on the presence of elections, and the assumption that authoritarianism always occurs on a state-level.

Marlies believes that creating a positive definition for authoritarianism is essential to remove the “core vacuum” in our understanding of the subject. Comparative politics defines it as the absence of free and fair elections, while political psychology defines it as a reflection of the psychological profile of the people. Both of these definitions are negative, as they identify the presence of authoritarianism through the absence of specific indicators, rather than defining how authoritarianism functions and presents itself. Marlies uses examples like Modi, Trump, Orban, and Duterte to show how often the current conversations on authoritarianism can be ineffective, since much debate is created over whether these leaders fit the glove of the current definition. This can be seen even in our lecture halls, as we debated in our first lectures about what actually makes someone a dictator. It was a different topic but shows how important it is to have regime classification tools that are fit for use, rather than ones that just lead us in circles.

The large reliance on electoral systems as a classification tool is also used by Marlies as an argument towards an alternative classification system. Later in the article he decides to define authoritarianism as measures used to sabotage accountability, which goes far beyond the scope of elections. He takes a very critical stance at scholars who ignore the flaws of democracy in their arguments and decides to focus instead of the core issue of accountability. Government agencies, local governance, and even transnational organisations all must be held to account, as their actions can be crucial indicators. One example he used was the Rendition program of the CIA. During George Bush’s era in the white house, the CIA used torture overseas to almost exclusively non-American citizens. This practice continued even with Bush out of the office, so how is examining elections going to help us prevent this practice? This was used as an example to show how authoritarian and illiberal practices can be perpetuated throughout election cycles, with no accountability to voters. It is no longer enough to simply focus on elections as an indicator.

Authoritarianism does not always occur on a state-level, Marlies argues, and elements of it can be seen at a transnational level as well as within political practices separated from state regimes. Marlies argues that scholars have failed to incorporate the impact of globalization into their research. Now that nations often have obligations to meet separate from their direct constituents, it can be hard to examine why certain actions take place if only focusing on the nation state. He uses Greece as an example, which elected the far left Syriza party during the nation’s debt crisis. Although they campaigned on renegotiating the debt repayments, the party changed very little in the outcome due to external pressures from the EU. In this situation the government was not accountable to their citizens, but only focusing on the nation state would limit comprehensive understanding of the case. Marlies takes a liberal stance as opposed to a realist one, claiming that the shift of international politics from solely state actors, to a multi-level structure with complex governance formats means we must expand our scope of focus.

After criticizing the current conversation around the subject, Marlies outlines indicators of both authoritarian and illiberal practices in order to create a new classification scheme. He notes that the separation of the two categories of practices is done because illiberal practices are often confounded as authoritarian, which is not always the case. Marlies believes both are harmful to society and overlap does occur, but that a distinction needs to be drawn in order to separate threats to liberal democracy from the study of authoritarianism.

Marlies decides to define authoritarian practices as measures taken to sabotage accountability, which broadens the scope from the previous focus on electoral processes. He cites the definition of accountability as  ‘a relationship between an actor and a forum, in which the actor has an obligation to explain and justify his or her conduct, the forum can pose questions and pass judgment, and the actor may face consequences’. This can include actions such as hiding actions from the people like the CIA did in the US, disrupting civic norms and duties, and controlling information. Marlies believes it important not to assume that lack of accountability is the same as sabotaging it, as no society is perfectly accountable, and one is done with the intent of domination while the other may be an oversight or systemic issue. Due to this purposeful way in which authoritarianism is enacted, he believes it important to view it as unique phenomenon separate from shortcomings of democracy. Examining the characteristics of authoritarianism is also important to examine it beyond or below the nation state level.

The reason for distinguishing between illiberal practices and authoritarian ones is the same as why democracy and liberal democracy are separated, Marlies claims. He does this to separate threats to liberal democracy from authoritarian alarm bells, to avoid confounding the two. He defines these as ‘a pattern of actions, embedded in an organized context, infringing on the autonomy and dignity of the person’. He draws this distinction as an analytical one, whilst reaffirming there are great amounts of overlap, such as the various authoritarian and illiberal practices Chavez incorporated despite winning a popular vote.

This article was effective in making an argument for the need for a new classification scheme, as well as pointing the way forward in an effective direction. I highly suggest you read this article, it isn’t long, and I’m surprised it wasn’t a required reading. It’s immediately relevant to our regime classification assignment, as it shows how important minor nuances in definitions and assumptions are to creating an effective scheme.