EBP #1

 Reading: Linz, Juan J. (1976). Chapter 7: An Authoritarian Regime: Spain. In Payne, G (Ed.), Politics and Society in twentieth-century Spain (pp 160-207). New Viewpoints. 

This chapter is the author’s attempt at classifying the Franco regime as an authoritarian regime, and consequently setting out a working academic definition of the concept of an authoritarian regime. The central argument of this article is that authoritarian regimes differ greatly from democracies and totalitarian states due to the composition of the elite (particularly the presence of the military) and the lack of political mobilisation. Linz uses the example of the Franco regime to demonstrate his key argument in a real world context, and also to provide a comprehensive analysis of the institutions and operations of the Franco regime, something which he notes is absent from the fields of sociology and political science. 

Summary

The chapter is split into two parts. Part I is about the different types of political system and their classification, whereas Part II is about how an authoritarian system uniquely deals with the problems which typically arise in any political landscape, such as the character of the political elite, how stability is maintained and whether the regime is likely to shift towards democracy or totalitarianism in the future. 

Part I

Linz uses the first part of the chapter to set out the distinctive characteristics of an authoritarian regime and justify why such a classification is necessary, instead of following the present approach of a continuum with totalitarianism at one end and democracy at the other. Linz rejects the idea of a single continuum on the basis that some regimes do not fit well into this dichotomy and so a further categorisation is required to prevent such regimes being treated as mere “deviations'' (p. 163). Subsequent academic discourse would suggest that Linz’s argument for a separate classification is a popular one, because authoritarian regimes are now a very clearly recognised category of state power.

Two of the key differences between authoritarian states and other forms of regime which Linz identifies are the presence of authoritarian ‘mentality’ rather than ideology, and the emphasis on apathy rather than mobilisation. Linz proposes the use of the term ‘mentality’ instead of ideology as being more appropriate for authoritarian regimes because the state and its leader can sometimes lack ideological coherence and the appeals to the idea of a utopia that are common within a totalitarian regime. Similarly, the author cites the first president of Egypt, Mohamed Naguib, as having recognised the important role that the “psychology” of a state plays rather than a clear “philosophy” (p. 168). By citing Naguib, Linz is adding significant evidential backing to his statements, because he is able to point to examples of regimes which overtly uphold the distinct authoritarian model he is discussing.

 Linz highlights the way in which the population in a stabilised authoritarian state is often in a state of apathy or “passive acceptance” of the regime’s power rather than the ideological fervour associated with totalitarianism (p. 170), further developing his argument for authoritarian regimes to be recognised as a distinct category rather than simply a less extreme form of totalitarianism. To reinforce this assertion, Linz relies on the example of the Spanish regime, particularly the depoliticisation of student organisations. 

Part II

Part II sees particularly heavy use of the case example of the Franco regime, which is only natural considering that this text was part of a book about the politics and society of Spain in the 20th century. The use of a case study is effective because it is a lot easier to contextualise concepts like the difference in elite membership when a cabinet is broken down by topics such as what percentage of Franco’s cabinet were army officers.

One of the ways that Linz distinguishes the authoritarian elite from their counterparts in a democratic or totalitarian system is the lack of members who have had to climb their way through the lower ranks of politics in order to achieve their position. In an authoritarian regime the elite are often less “heterogeneous” and tend to have a higher number of members from professional or military backgrounds (p. 183). However, one potential example which Linz brings up that may undermine his argument for the unique nature of authoritarian elites is Alberto Martin-Artajo. Linz mentions Martin-Artajo as “one element of pluralism” due to his membership of different groups, including the Catholic publishing trust, and that he would likely be successful in public life in a democracy as in an authoritarian regime (p. 191). This seems to undermine Linz’s theory about the importance of prior positions in relation to the ability to gain power in an authoritarian state because Linz suggests that some authoritarian elite would likely have thrived in an alternative system anyway. 

Towards the end of the chapter, Linz also makes some predictions or suggestions of what might happen in the future. This raises one potential limitation of the text because it was first published in 1964. However, one of his predictions was that many totalitarian states will shift towards simply being more authoritarian, and given the decline in totalitarian states, it appears that this prediction has aged quite well. Additionally, the consideration of the Franco regime included grounding it in the historical context, and so this has not been affected by the passing of time after the text was published.

A consideration of different forms of authoritarian regimes (such as competitive/pluralistic authoritarianism) may have also further strengthened Linz’s argument, but given that the literature at the time was hesitant to even recognise authoritarianism in the first place, this may have been too significant a task to achieve in the confines of this text.

Relevance to POLS209

Linz’s characteristics of an authoritarian regime are an excellent reference point for thinking about the creation of our own regime classification framework. The text is also an effective example of theoretical concepts in their real world context due to the way the author brings in the example of the Spanish cabinet, as I found it useful to see the theory presented alongside tangible data like a table showing the occupational background of Cabinet Members from 1931-1936 and during the Franco regime to demonstrate the way in which occupation can affect political mobility. This reading, written by a key figure in the field of political science, is one that I will definitely be referring back to in the future.