Dangers of Authoritarian Rule

According to Gretchen Casper “Authoritarian regimes leave an imprint on society long after their leaders have been overthrown because they systematically seek to alter the traditional roles of important social institutions”(3). What this means is that state institutions like the police, military, the judiciary do not perform credibly even after the overthrown of an authoritarian regime because under authoritarian rule, individuals or leaders of these state institutions have been appointed by these authoritarian leaders and when they are no longer in power their style of governing and doing things still remain with them which goes a long way to affect the state. (In some democratic countries, the change of government often affects these political appointments.) The use of the word

“credibly” is not to say these state institutions do not function properly or do not do their job well but because they had been under authoritarian rule for a long time they turn to think that, that system of authoritarian governance is correct and still implement it in their work.

The issue of weak institutions is clearly seen after an authoritarian government is overthrown. Due to the improper administration of these state institutions the change of government from one regime to another often times is clearly seen to be manipulated by the overthrown government. This is how O’Donnell puts it “weakly or strongly,

depending on the case and the stage of the transition, these rulers retain discretionary power over arrangements and rights which in a stable democracy would be reliably protected by the constitution and various independent institutions”(6). “In other words, authoritarian leaders transform or destroy the social institutions on which a successful democracy depends” (Casper 4).

To further elaborate this point, what O’Donnell seeks to address is the absence of a proper constitution and independent institutions that should serve as a guide for a country emerging out of an authoritarian rule. I use the word “proper” because constitution of a country can be and always are manipulated under authoritarian regime.

An example is the Egyptian regimes where political leaders like Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak have all amended the constitution to favor and allow them to have unlimited rule of power. The danger these authoritarian regimes pose for a nation even after their overthrow is that individuals and groups of that society turn to lose faith in the state institutions and there by result to violence and sometimes coup after a new government have been established whenever they feel dissatisfied with the governance style of the ruling party. They feel that even though the authoritarian leaders no longer rule, the state institutions are being led by authoritarian persons because they previously served under these authoritarian leaders. In the book Legacies of Authoritarian rule, Casper argues that

“However, political instability does not end with the collapse of authoritarianism and the introduction of or return to democracy. The experience of authoritarianism also threatens the post authoritarian government because institutions and groups cannot revert back to their preauthoritarian behaviour and structures”( 7).

If Casper’s argument is true then that can be said to be the situation in Egypt right now.

The malfunctioning of institutions like the judiciary, military and the police is what has led to continual instability in the country. One underlying factor that has made the Egypt situation what it is now in my opinion, is their failure to amend their constitution to change the powers previous leaders have accorded themselves and also strengthening their institutions. When institutions are strengthened, you strengthen democracy also. The second factor which has contributed to continuous uprising and authoritarian rule is their failure to include in their constitution a duration of office for their presidency, so then you have Mubarak reigning as president for 29 years but if they had amended the constitution to have just two term or three terms for presidency a situation of this sort could have been avoided since it leads to future predicaments.

It is not that easy though to amend constitutions and strengthen institutions under

authoritarian regimes and even after because “the experience of authoritarianism changes social institutions. In the short term, this change leads to the institutions defecting from

the authoritarian regime’s support coalition, causing its collapse. In the long run, the experiences that the institutions undergo can threaten democratic consolidation, as the institutions are trying to simultaneously reunify their membership and re - identify their roles in society” (Casper 8). To further elaborate the above point, I will like to mention that, some individuals and persons who are part of this state institutions being run by authoritarian leaders somehow realizes the need to form a likeness of democracy for other countries that practice democracy to appreciate. Even though under this purported democracy the methods of authoritarian rule are still being applied in ruling. And these individuals who had worked for these authoritarian leaders somehow manage to still hold their positions within these institutions even after the over throw of a regime leader to still control the affairs of the nation. This often poses danger for democracy since the ideologies remain the same except the leader that has been removed.

What often takes place under this governance is the introduction of liberalization rule, where certain laws are amended as a form of democracy for the citizens. Here individuals and groups enjoy their freedom of association, multi – party is accepted and their rights as individuals are protected by the state but “liberalization can exist without

democratization” (O’Donnell & Schmitter 10). O’Donnell believes that “authoritarian rulers may tolerate or even promote liberalization in belief that by opening up certain spaces for individual and group action, they can relieve various pressures and obtain needed information and support without altering the structure of authority, that is, without becoming accountable to the citizenry for their actions or subjecting their claim to rule […] “tutelary democracy” (9). The above arguments go to confirm how dangerous authoritarian rule is and what effects it brings on a nation. Egypt which has been a clear case study for this discussion reveals the impact such an authoritarian regime has had on a nation. I end by saying that “under authoritarianism, the institutions have become radicalized. When the country tries to return to democracy, these institutions cannot easily revert back to their preauthoritarian roles” (Casper 10). The question then remains, how can Egypt solve its problem of political uncertainty?