Autocracy

Some autocracies establish legislatures, unfair elections, or show trials to further exercise control while presenting the appearance of democracy.

Autocrats must retain control over the nation's elites and institutions for their will to be exercised, but they must also prevent any other individual or group from gaining significant power or influence.

[15] Douglass North, John Joseph Wallis, and Barry R. Weingast describe autocracies as natural states that arise from this need to monopolize violence.

As violence reduces the economic rents, members of the dominant coalition have incentives to cooperate and to avoid fighting.

A limited access to privileges is necessary to avoid competition among the members of the dominant coalition, who then will credibly commit to cooperate and will form the state.

Neither a state's size, its military strength, its economic success, nor its cultural attributes significantly affect whether it is likely to be autocratic.

[15] Autocracies face challenges to their authority from several fronts, including the citizenry, political opposition, and internal disloyalty from elites.

Government reform can provide an impetus for stronger opposition, especially when it does not meet expectations, and it can weaken the centralization of power through poor implementation.

When revolt appears likely, an autocrat may grant civil rights, redistribute wealth, or abdicate from power entirely to avoid the threat of violence.

[33] Orders of succession allow for more peaceful transition of power, but it prevents meaningful vetting of successors for competence or fortitude.

This bureaucracy facilitates the transfer of power, as the new ruler gains immediate control over the nation without having to conquer its people or win their popular support.

Less widely accepted autocracies may rally internal support by attributing their lack of recognition to malevolent foreign efforts, such as American imperialism or Zionism.

Totalitarian governments are revolutionary, seeking radically to reform society, and they often engage in terror against groups that do not comply with the state's vision.

[41] An absolute autocracy may be referred to as despotism, in which the autocrat rules purely through personal control without any meaningful institutions.

[43] Sultanism is a type of personalist dictatorship[34] in which a ruling family directly integrates itself into the state through a cult of personality, where it maintains control purely through rewards for allies and force against enemies.

These autocracies grant moderate representation to political opponents and allow exercise of some civil rights, though less than those associated with democracy.

[56] Ancient Egypt also existed as an autocratic government for most of its early history,[43] first developing states at the end of the fourth millennium BCE.

These include the rule of the Goguryeo kingdom by Yeon Gaesomun in 642,[65] the Goryeo military regime beginning in 1170,[66] and the shogunate in Japan between the 12th and 19th centuries.

[68] Absolutism became more common in European monarchies at the onset of the 16th century as the continent struggled with weak leadership and religious conflict.

[35] The French Revolution marked a significant shift in the perception of dictatorship as a form of tyrannical rule, as revolutionaries justified their actions as a means of combatting tyranny.

[72] In 19th century Latin America, regional rulers known as caudillos seized power in several nations as early examples of dictators.

[74] The upheaval caused by World War I resulted in a broad shift of governance across Europe, and many nations moved away from traditional monarchies.

Societies without a state were readily colonized by European nations and subsequently adopted democracy and parliamentary government after it became common in Europe.

Regions with historically strong autocratic states were able to resist European colonization or otherwise went unchanged, allowing autocracy to be preserved.

[79] The strength of autocracy in global politics was significantly reduced at the end of the Cold War with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, but it saw a resurgence over the following decades through regional powers such as China, Iran, Russia, and Saudi Arabia.

Autocratic governments also engage in co-optation, in which influential figures are provided benefits by the regime in exchange for their support.

[90] Autocratic regimes in the 21st century have departed from the historical precedent of direct rule in favor of institutions that resemble those of democratic governments.

[91][92] Elections provide several benefits to autocratic regimes, allowing for a venue to restrain or appease the opposition and creating a method to transfer power without violent conflict.

[107] The concepts of tyranny and despotism as distinct modes of government were abandoned in the 19th century in favor of more specific typologies.

[108] Modern typology of autocratic regimes originates from the work of Juan Linz in the mid-20th century, when his division of democracy, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism became accepted.