Is authoritarianism fundamentally impermanent?
Authoritarianism is a form of governmental rule in which the subjects are expected to be submissive. This type of government has been rather common in the Middle East and larger Asia. In such a form of government, citizens are denied their freedom of expression as well as their freedom to act. Moreover, authority in such systems is given only to the leader or the few elites in the society. The small group of elites or the leader is not held accountable to the people. Authoritarian leaders, as will be seen in the cases to be examined, are allowed to manipulate their power arbitrarily. This form of rule is the exact divergence of democracy. At the beginning of this century, there have been numerous revolutions as people rebel against the authoritarian rule in most nations. I believe that authoritarianism is practically impermanent.
One ideal illustration is the termination of China’s authoritarian government. China has always been under the leadership of CPP. It is what most people would refer to as a one-party nation. There is the notion that it is much easier to handle matters relating to policy adjustments and institutional adaptations in an authoritarian government. However, this concept is just a mere fallacy. The Chinese system is full of flaws. It is only in the unfolding of the Bo Xilai crisis that these flaws have become apparent to most people. The system is flawed with nepotism, frequent corruption, and unfair appointment of leaders. The ruling party has facilitated the rise of the few elites who have no respect whatsoever for the law. In the past decades, the Chinese government has been termed as being resilient and authoritarian.
The assumption is that CPP has established a means of creating a sustainable economy. The merits of this government include intra-party checks, increased national strength, and societal diversity. However, these factors should not fool you for the government’s authoritarian system is still vulnerable. The recent socio-economic crises have proven that the resilient authoritarian system has its vulnerabilities as well. In the case of Bo, he had made his name as a leader with firm convictions against corruption. Ironically, it turned out that he was involved in a series of corrupt cases or what is being termed as the mafia. This, among other issues, has threatened the unity of the party. The party is gradually losing its credibility among the civilians. China is now heading for major transitions. For one, the current authoritarian government is less powerful compared to past authoritarian leaders. Such leaders as Deng Xiaoping and Mao Zedong had greater influence and much more power than the current government. The nation’s leadership is gradually shifting from the hands of individuals and eventually becoming a collective system. The government is becoming responsible to the people, lesser corrupt, and also relatively more representative. It confirms my hypothesis that authoritarianism is impermanent.
Another illustration is Yusha’s regime which eventually collapsed in 1979. The system came to an end after President Park Chug Hee was assassinated by his chief intelligence aide. Some political scientists argue that the assassination helped save the nation from experiencing a revolutionary bloodbath. While Chung Hee was still in power, there began to form cracks in his government. His death marked the end of the authoritarian rule in South Korea. As such, the people went ahead and even had a referendum. They approved a new constitution which upheld democracy. However, the process of restoring democracy was hindered as another authoritarian rose to power in 1980. As most scholars argue, this was a result of the power structure still resembling the authoritarian system. However, the authoritarian system was again opposed from 1987 to 1992. There were all forms of violence especially after Roh Tae Woo was nominated as Chun’s successor. Students went on rampage and street violence was at its highest across the nation. To the surprise of all involved, Tae Woo wanted to have a democratic government. The first democratic elections were held in December 1992.
Is economic performance legitimacy the most important factor in explaining authoritarian persistence in the Asia-Pacific?
Over the past years, the authoritarian forms of government have remained in power owing to the notion that they deliver economic performance legitimacy. In the case of China, having CPP as the only party has indeed facilitated fast economic growth in the nation. For one, statistics show that the country’s economy by 2002 had grown by eight times compared to how it was in 1978. Within the same period, there was a 600% increase in per capita income. Per capita income in 1978 and 2003 was $151 and $1,097 respectively. While economic growth was noted, there were also improvements in the social structure. The rate of urbanization increased by 21%.
In the case of Korea, Park Chung Hee was known to create development plans. For instance, he created a five-year development plan in 1962. The top priorities, in this case, were national security and economic growth. There was also a domestic policy strategy that would ensure the realization of the plan. For the project to be achieved, there was the need to implement political stability which implied that the military was willing and ready to do all it took to ensure stability in the nation. As such, financial institutions, the labor market, and businesses were compelled to comply with the laid directives. The government made major reforms which included enhancing the tax system, changes in the tariff system, and the overhaul of the entire tax structure. The primary aim of such reforms was to liberalize the economy and enhance the economic growth rate.
However, this may not apply in all cases. The authoritarian government in Korea has shocked many. This comes after its reign continues even with the economic crisis being experienced in the nation. It is indeed a unique case. As Yun-Jo Cho identifies, countries such as Indonesia were quick to oust their dictators when they were hit by an economical crisis. North Korea has gone against the propositions of the democratization theory. The main reason, as Cho writes, is that North Korea has personalistic authoritarians. This is one authoritarian system that has proven to be resilient even in the face of crisis.
Are factors explaining regime stability in North Korea applicable to other countries?
I am surprised to learn that North Korea is still under the leadership of an authoritarian regime. Even in the face of the economic crisis the system still holds. The primary factor that sustained this regime was the strong personality of Kim II-Sung. He had ruled over the nation for 40 years. He managed to establish the personalistic neo-patrimonial element. His rule of law was not impersonal but rather a personal patronage network. His death resulted in the political crisis that only made the economic crises greater than they were before. As Cho mentions, countries such as Indonesia had a well-established authoritarian system that soon collapsed after they were hit by the economic crisis. According to the democratization theory, military, personalized and one-party authoritarianism collapse mainly in the face of economic crisis. Theoretically, an economic crisis triggers a revolution among the citizens.
DPRK has managed to establish an incentive system. It is whereby those within the government receive incentives even amid an economic crisis. Thereby, the chances of a split within the government structure are petite. Such a form of government enjoys the benefits of resistance to internal conflict. Those in the government have a lower tendency to uphold reforms and are deprived of their political independence. In such a case, the latter seems like a little price to pay for all the material inducements afforded to them.
Most of the nations exercising one-party authoritarianism are facing the challenge of uniting all the involved members. Countries such as China are unable to maintain the authoritarian rule as their leading parties gradually succumb to the pressures mounted on them by economic and social faces. DPRK has proven to be an exceptional case. The difference may be in the form of authoritarianism used or simply the unification of a good-headed dictator. The latter could explain why the system was shaken after the death of II-Sung. The bottom line is that authoritarianism may not be ideal, but it seems to b working for this nation. The irony, however, lies in its name The Democratic Republic of Korea. It is neither a republic nor a Democrat.