POLITICAL SC. FINAL

8/7/2019 POLITICAL SC. FINAL

1/18

AUTHORITARIANISM IN GLOBALIZATION: A THEORETICAL

CONSIDERATION

Submitted To: Dr. Maheshwar Singh

Submitted By: Arunav Guha Roy

B.A.; LL.B (Hons.), I Year

Roll No. : 2009/19

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

DELHI


2/18

CONTENTS

1. Introduction 32. Chapter 1: Globalization and Authoritarianism: Theoretical Issues 53. Chapter 2: Globalization influenced Authoritarianism in different 12

parts of the world.

4. Chapter 3: Conclusion 16


3/18

Authoritarianism in Globalization: A theoretical consideration

INTRODUCTION

In the last twenty five years, democratically elected governments replaced authoritarian

regimes at a shocking pace. From 1974 2000; more than five dozen democracies were formed

in different parts of Europe, Latin America, Asia and Africa.1 But, as it can be observed from

various countries who received a new government such as Egypt and Philippines, the

foundations of democracy remained unsteady. The persistence of regimes such as Hosni

Mubaraks in Egypt has confounded the expectation that authoritarianism was merely a

transitional phase before democracy, providing that under certain conditions autocracies can last.

Democracies flourished in unexpected territories and hence many political scientists predicted

the downfall of remaining authoritarian regimes.

The basic question which this research project will aim to answer is What forces set two

countries on such disparate paths? The basic answer that will be expounded upon is that basic

institutional differences separate unstable regimes from durable dictatorships.

Explaining the democratizations that took place during the eighties and nineties (or what

is more commonly called the third wave) took place require answers to two questions. First

why did some thirty odd countries but not others under authoritarian regimes shift to democratic

political systems? Second, why did these regime changes occur in the past twenty five years and

not some other time?

The answer to the first question would depend upon the history of the regime changes in

the countries that democratized. One explanation could be the cyclical pattern where countries

alternate between democracy and authoritarianism, as is prevalent in various countries of Latin

America such as Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru etc., in these countries change of regimes perform the

same function as the change of parties in stable democratic systems. Hence, the country does not

1Brownlee, Jason Authoritarianism in an Age of Globalization p.1 , 2007 Cambridge University Press


4/18

alternate between democratic and authoritarian political systems; the alteration between

democratic and authoritarian systems is the countrys political system. 2 An alternate

explanation could be that either the either the democratic system failed because the country

lacked the social basis for democracy or that the leaders of the new system pursued extremist

policies that reasoning;

Whatever the reasoning, it is undisputed that globalization has definitely contributed to the

formation of semi-authoritarian regimes and states. The following pages will illustrate how

globalization has influenced democratic processes world over.

2Huntington, Samuel The third Wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century1993 University of

Oklahoma Press. U.S.A


5/18

CHAPTER 1- GLOBALIZATION AND AUTHORITARIANISM: THEORETICAL

ISSUES

Before one can truly explain the position of authoritarian regimes in todays global arena,

a basic overview and understanding of what authoritarianism stands for is required.

In a colloquial context; authoritarianism can be best described as a form of government

where primary focus lies on the authority of the state or administration in a republic or union.

This form of political system usually comprise of rulers who have attained power through non-

democratic processes and allow only a limited degree of individual freedom to its citizens.

Various authoritarian regimes in todays world include the Peoples Republic of China, the

Democratic Republic of Congo and the Russian Federation.

1.1 CHARACTERISITCS OF AN AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENT:

An authoritarian government can be typically characterized by highly centralized power

structures in which political power is maintained by a repressive system that excludes political

challengers and uses political parties and mass organizations to mobilize the people around the

goals of the government.

Common principles prevailing in authoritarian regimes include:

1. Rule of men rather than the rule of law: This implies that there exists no legal,customary or moral limit to the governments power. Here the autocracy is supreme

and can frame and repeal laws without adhering to any formal procedure.

2. Undemocratic processes: This basically means that leaders come to power, not by ageneral consensus but through the favor of a select few. Hence democratic exercises

like elections and referendums are generally rigged.

3. Decision making is primarily done behind closed doors: This implies a lack ofregard for public opinion on issues of national importance. Again as referendums and

elections are rigged, needs of the public are not addressed and decisions are made by

a handful of unelected officials.

All of the above leads to an informal and unregulated exercise of political power.


6/18

Therefore, it can be concluded that in an authoritarian system, the leadership is self-

appointed and even if elected, cannot be displaced by the people. A unique aspect of

authoritarian systems and other related governments is the lack of tolerance of any political

opposition. This leads to the consequence that any expression or even an attempt of expression of

freedom is vehemently suppressed by the state. There exists only one political party which

subordinates the rights of the individual to the cause of the state, and in which political power

guided all the activities of the dominated society. Hence authoritarian systems inevitably lead to

a weakening of civil society. As this form of governance is characterized by lack of personal

freedom and civil liberties, it restricts formation of groups, organizations and parties to compete

for power and question the decision of its rulers. This automatically results in a devaluation of

the social structure or schema causing the general populace to lose interest in society and

creating a false sense of political stability. This political stability is being labeled as false because

people are not genuinely satisfied and hence are not willfully obeying the political authority;

rather obedience is maintained by the support of the military to provide security to the system

and control of society. Furthermore; stability is maintained through a bureaucracy staffed by the

regime and creation of alliances within certain sections of the society in order to prevent

unionism or hinder the rise of a unified voice, the fundamental logic being divide et empera

meaning to divide and rule.

As authoritarianism can be easily confused with totalitarianism as the latter is a more extreme

version of the former. It is imperative to draw a line of difference between the two.

1.2 AUTHORITARIANISM VS. TOTALITARIANISM:

Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state

~ Benito Mussolini

Totalitarianism is a political system where the state recognizes no limit to its authority

and tries to control every aspect of public and private life. Totalitarianism is basically a cross

between authoritarianism and ideology, where the authoritarian state has a pervasive scheme of

values promulgated by institutional means to direct the most significant aspects of public and

private life. Here the state has its own perception of an ideal society and uses its power in an


7/18

authoritarian way in order to establish it. Stalins regime in USSR, Pol Pots regime in Vietnam

and Hitlers Third Reich in Germany can be classic examples of such a system.

While both authoritarianism and totalitarianism are forms of autocracy, they both differ

in key dichotomies:

1. Unlike the generally bland and unpopular authoritarian leaders. Totalitarian dictatorsdevelop a charismatic image in front of the masses in order to enforce their brand of

ideology. They create a pseudo-democratic interdependence with their followers via

the conscious manipulation of a prophetic image.

2. Role conception of leaders also differentiates authoritarians from totalitarians.Authoritarian leaders view themselves as individual beings that mainly want to

control and maintain status quo. Whereas totalitarian self conceptions are largely

teleological i.e. the ruler considers himself not as a person but as a function

essential for guiding and reshaping society.

3. As Totalitarian regimes function on the basis of an ideology they consider as flawless,it engenders a society devoid of corruption. The case is not the same for an

authoritarian society--where the only purpose is satisfaction of the oligarchs--and

order is maintained by instilling fear and granting incentives to a loyal few thereby

engendering a kleptocracy.

Thus compared to totalitarian systems, authoritarian systems have a larger sphere of private life,

lack a guiding ideology, tolerate some pluralism in social organization, lack the power to

mobilize the whole population in pursuit of national goals, and exercise their power within

relatively predictable limits.

1.3DIFFERENT TYPES OF AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES:

Even though people use words like authoritarianism, autocracy and absolutism

interchangeably; marked differences exist between these terms as far a political science is

concerned. The different versions of authoritarianism are as follows:


8/18

1. Autocracy: In an autocracy, unchecked and overriding political power is lodged in oneperson occupying a single high office. The power of government is absolute (i.e.,

unlimited) and is concentrated in the hands of the autocrat, who reserves to himself the

right to make the final decisions of government. In the final analysis, one person makes

the important decisions regarding public policy and its implementation. If the autocrat--

the one person in whom resides unlimited political power--is an hereditary monarch (king

or queen, emperor or empress), the governmental system is an absolute monarchy. In an

absolute monarchy, government is carried on in the name of one person who inherits his

title and office and who wields political power that is not effectively limited by law. The

Monarch exercises full and unbridled ruling power and does not have to share authority

with a legislative assembly or with other independent power centers in the government.

Examples of absolute monarchies that stand out in the history of Europe include (1) the

government of France under the personal direction and control of King Louis XIV during

the period from the death of his chief minister, Cardinal Mazarin, in 1661 to the death of

King Louis in 1715 and (2) the government of Russia under Czar Peter I (Peter the Great)

from 1689 to 1725 and under Czarina Catherine II (Catherine the Great) from 1762 to

1796. Absolute monarchy is the older and more traditional form of autocracy. More

recent forms of autocracy concentrate unlimited power in the hands of one person who

obtained the position of top political leader and ruler of his country, not through

hereditary succession in accordance with long-standing custom and tradition, but through

either an armed takeover of governing authority or victory in a popular election. The

autocrat, though not an hereditary monarch, is still complete master and absolute ruler of

the political society he leads and governs. The autocrat's word is law. In Nazi Germany,

for example, the key operating premise of the Third Reich was: "The will of the Fuhrer is

the law of the German state." Classic examples of twentieth-century autocracies include

some well-known political regimes of the recent past--(1) the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler

in Germany (1933-1945), (2) the Fascist regime of Benito Mussolini in Italy (1922-

1943), and the government of the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin (1922-1953). Present-

day examples of non-hereditary, non-monarchical autocracies include the political

regimes in Libya, Syria, and Serbia.


9/18

2. Authoritarian Oligarchy: The type of governmental system referred to as"authoritarian oligarchy," or "collective dictatorship," is characterized by absolute rule

of the few. Unchecked, overriding political power is lodged in the hands of a very small

number of persons who make up single cohesive elite.3 Governing power is concentrated

in one small, closely-knit group that operates as a single unit, wielding power and

governing as if its members were a single person exercising unlimited power. The ruling

elite govern as if it were an autocrat, a single absolute ruler. The elite may have gained

power through inheritance, forcible seizure of power, or victory in an election. One

particular type of authoritarian oligarchy in the modern world is the one-party state. In a

one-party state, unchecked and overriding political power is in the hands of a small,

cohesive party elite--a tightly-knit elite group consisting of the top leaders of a single

official political party. The single official party is the only legally recognized party--the

only political party that the law permits to exist and operate. The official party, as the sole

provider of candidates for public office, completely dominates the government and all

other aspects of political life within the society. The one-party state has been the typical

pattern of government in Communist-ruled societies. The one-party oligarchy was the

type of political regime that operated in the Soviet Union from the Communist seizure of

power in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 to the emergence of Stalin as autocratic ruler

in 1922 and again from the death of Stalin in 1953 to the political developments of 1989-

1991--the collapse of the Soviet Communist regime and the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. A

one-party state has operated on the Chinese mainland since 1949, when the Chinese

Communists, under the leadership of Mao Tse-tung, emerged as the victors in the civil

war they had been waging against the government controlled by the Kuomintang (i.e., the

Chinese Nationalist Party) and headed by Chiang Kai-shek.

3. Absolute Democracy: Just as a political regime can be constitutional without beingdemocratic, one can be democratic without being constitutional. A government that is

democratic, but not constitutional, is called an "absolute democracy." Other labels that

have been used to refer to non-constitutional democratic political regimes include

"majoritarian dictatorship," "popular despotism," "tyranny of the majority," and "simple,

unchecked democracy." Absolute democracy, or majoritarian dictatorship, is

3http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/44640/authoritarianism 20/11/2009


10/18

characterized by absolute, or unlimited, rule of the majority. Unchecked, overriding

political power is in the hands of a simple majority (50.1 percent) of the adult citizens or

their democratically elected representatives. In such a governmental system, majority rule

is a "blank check" authorizing whatever a majority--even a very slim majority--of the

voting citizenry wishes to do, either directly or through its elected representatives. There

are no legal or constitutional restraints on the authoritative decision making and action

taking power of the majority. Examples of absolute democracy in ancient history include

the direct democracies that operated in Athens and some of the other city-states of ancient

Greece where the governmental decisions on public policy and the fate of individuals

accused of wrongdoing were determined ultimately and finally by the sovereign will of

the popular majority, unimpeded by pre-existing law. An important example of absolute

democracy occurring during the modern era of European history is the political regime

that operated in France during that brief but most violent phase of the French Revolution

known to history as the "Reign of Terror" i.e., the period of Jacobin dictatorial rule from

June 2, 1793, to June 27, 1794. There are no definite examples of absolute democracies

in the modern era, as these have been highly unstable and have had rather short lives.

Generally, such political regimes have quickly collapsed, resulting in civil war or

widespread lawlessness and violence, followed by autocracy or oligarchy ruthlessly

imposed by military force and ruthlessly maintained by continuing resort to the usual

brutal and downright barbarous methods of a tyrannical, thoroughgoing police-state.4

We can conclude by saying that all types of authoritarianism have one key characteristic in

common: Unbridled political power is lodged in one place--one person, one small and united

group, or a unified, highly disciplined, and well-led popular majority or its elected

representatives, who are unified, highly disciplined and well led.

1.4WHAT IS GLOBALIZATION?

4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism 21/11/2009


11/18

Globalization can be simply called the process of increasing interconnectedness between

societies such that events in one part of the world have increasing influence on people and

societies far away.

A globalized world is one in which political, economic, cultural and social events become

more and more interconnected. And also one in which they have more impact.

Globalization describes an ongoing process by which regional economies, societies, and

cultures have become integrated through a globe-spanning network of communication and

execution. The term is sometimes used to refer specifically to economic globalization: the

integration of national economies into the international economy through trade, foreign direct

investment, capital flows, migration, and the spread of technology.5

Even though many definitions exist, globalization as a phenomenon is quite difficult to

describe, mainly because it has come to mean so many things. In general, globalization refers

to the trend toward countries joining together economically, through education, society and

politics, and viewing themselves not only through their national identity but also as part of

the world as a whole. Globalization is said to bring people of all nations closer together,

especially through a common medium like the economy or the Internet.6

In our world, there are few places a person cant get to within a day of travel, and few

people a person cant reach via telephone or Internet. Because of modern modes of travel and

communication, citizens of a nation are more conscious of the world at large and may be

influenced by other cultures in a variety of ways. Time and space matter less, and even

language barriers are being overcome as people all over the world communicate through

trade, social Internet forums, various media sources, and a variety of other ways.

5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization. 21/11/2009

6http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-globalization.htm 21/11/2009


12/18

CHAPTER 2 GLOBALIZATION INFLUENCED AUTHORITARIANISM IN

DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE WORLD.

With the benefit of hindsight; it is evident that the 1990s marked a transitional period in

the timeline of the democratic movement. The Soviet Union had collapsed and democracy was

on the march, additionally the popular color revolutions (non-violent revolutions across states

which form a part of the erstwhile soviet union, these include Georgias Rose Revolution (2003),

Ukraines Orange Revolution (2004), Kyrgyzstans Tulip Revolution (2005) ) stunned rulers all

over the world and inspired liberalists from Central Asia to the Middle East. As a consequence of

this; in todays globalised society; authoritarianism today has lost the sway it once held in the

world.

In response to this, I must concede that this has not marked the end of authoritarianism.

Indeed this particular form of government unlike its totalitarian brethren has managed to regroup

and is adapting and modernizing its repressive practices to evolve into its 21 st century persona to

strive and act as a possible alternative to failed democracies everywhere.

In the current scenario, there are many right wing authoritarian regimes functioning all

over the world under the guise of democracy. Such regimes are also known as semi-authoritarian

regimes. Marina Ottaway, senior professor at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,

and author of several books, most recently Democracy Challenged: The Rise of Semi-

Authoritarianism describes semi-authoritarian regimes as those who paint a faade of

democracy without really being democratic7. For example, its a regime that holds competitive

elections regularly, has formal separation of powers, has an elected parliament; has a supposedly

independent judiciary, and executive which is supposedly checked by the parliament. But in

reality, the executive has overwhelming power.

Therefore, one can safely state that even though authoritarianism in its traditional sense

has disappeared, its new form as semi-authoritarianism is what we see today.

7Ottaway Marina Democracy Challenged: The Rise of Semi-Authoritarianismp. 133, 2003 Carnegie Endowment

for International Peace


13/18

But why are these regimes cowering behind this guise of democracy to survive? Why do they not

completely reject democracy like their predecessors had done?

The simple answer: Diplomacy. Its the realization by these nations that its no longer

acceptable to simply reject democracy. There is no acceptable ideology that justifies an

authoritarian solution. At the theoretical level, democracy is the only acceptable political system,

so regimes that are in fact quite determined to not allow curbs on their power need to show that

they embrace democracy. Thats why you have elections in a lot of countries that are really a

charade, because they are completely controlled by the executive, they are not free or fair, they

are not a real challenge to the power.

The countries that can be called semi-authoritarian today are a lot of the countries that

made a political transition in the 1990s and were expected to turn into democracies. This appears

true certainly for most of the Soviet successor states, but also a number of countries in Eastern

Europe, although not in countries like Hungary and Poland and the Czech Republic, where real

democracies seem to be taking shape.8

A question that may arise as one makes this observation is that why is it that some

countries develop true democracies whereas others from the same region come under

authoritarian rule? Political theorists say that this totally depends on the existence of alternate

political forces in the country during the time of transition. For example, in the case of Poland or

Czech Republic, there existed a strong political opposition that pushed for change, even when the

government was resisting. In the Czech Republic, there was a development of strong grass root

movements. By contrast, in countries that had a semi-authoritarian outcome, there was a marked

absence of political opposition. For example, in Azerbaijan the transformation took place

because the Soviet Union collapsed, not because there was a strong political opposition, whose

absence allowed the government to return to its old authoritarian ways, under a faade that

makes it acceptable to the West.

Apart from the ones mentioned above; many other countries may also be labeled as

semi-authoritarian, these include China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan and Venezuela. These countries

can also be called the five most influential authoritarian nations. They deserve special mention as

8http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4bd4868e-6806-11dd-8d3b-0000779fd18c.html?nclick_check=1 22/11/2009


14/18

they impede democratic development both within and beyond their borders and are largely

responsible for the recent overall decline of political freedom throughout the world.

These countries resemble traditional authoritarian regimes in their subversion of

democracy using a combination of tools, including manipulation of the legal system, media

control, and outright fear. The ruling group in each country protects its power by rewarding

loyalists and punishing opponents without regard to due process. What makes these cases unique

and a genuinely new phenomenon, though, is the innovation and sophistication they are using to

subvert online discourse. When not controlling Internet access, these regimes have deployed

armies of commentators and provocateurs to distract and disrupt legitimate Internet discussions.

The new authoritarians also shape international values and views through sophisticated

and well-funded global media enterprises. The Kremlin has launched Russia Today, a

multimillion-dollar television venture that broadcasts to North America, Europe, and Asia. In

2007, Iran created Press TV, an English-language satellite station with an international staff

several hundred strong and China is poised to spend enormous sums on expanding overseas

media operations in a bid to improve the country's image. Beijing has reportedly set aside at least

$6 billion for these media expansion efforts.9

Meanwhile, these governments have not limited their checkbooks to media investments.

By doling out billions of dollars in no-strings-attached foreign aid, they are hobbling

international efforts to improve governance and reduce corruption through conditional aid.

Chinese leaders put forward a doctrine of "win-win" foreign relationships, encouraging Latin

American, African, Asian, and Arab states to form mutually beneficial arrangements with

Beijing based on the principle of noninterference. The Chinese aid program appears to attract

willing recipients; the World Bank estimates that China is now the largest lender to Africa.

Russia, Iran, and Venezuela have similarly used their oil wealth to build foreign alliances and

bankroll clients abroad, particularly in their home regions.

As part of the broader effort to export authoritarian influence, these regimes are also

working hard to disrupt key international rules-based bodies that support democracy and human

rights, including the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Organization of

9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism 21/11/2009


15/18

American States, and the Council of Europe. At the United Nations, they have formed ad hoc

coalitions to blunt criticism, obstruct proposed sanctions, and advance anti-democratic measures.

Furthermore, todays authoritarians have learnt much from the mistakes made by their

predecessors and hence have altered their strategies in more ways than one. They havediscontinued many practices which can be termed as traditional.10

These states recognize that absolute control over information and economic activity is

neither possible nor necessary. Instead, they have adapted their traditional coercive mechanisms

with more subtle methods. Political discourse is "managed," rather than blatantly dictated,

through the selective suppression or reshaping of news and information. And while the most

important business entities are either co-opted or swallowed up by the state, the days of the

command economy are over. Citizens are allowed to enjoy personal freedoms -- including

foreign travel and access to consumer goods -- that would have been unthinkable in the era of

Mao and Brezhnev.

A manifestation of this kind of thinking can be clearly seen by the curriculum of the

educational institutions of these states. Theses semi-authoritarian regimes actively promote or

enable the distortion of history through a nationalistic or extremist lens. This form of illiberal

education inculcates an attitude of hostility towards democracy and suspicion towards the outside

world within the minds of the next generation. In China, regime-authorized textbooks propagate

the notion; that calls for expanded human rights are an instrument for the West to keep China

down. History courses ignore or explain away the dark chapters in the countrys history during

the Communist era, including the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, or the

Tiananmen massacre of 1989. In Russia, textbooks introduced at the Kremlins direction depict

Stalin as among the countrys greatest leaders and suggest that the Great Terror was product of

the times. In May 2009, President Dmitry Medvedev created a special commission to investigate

and counter falsified versions of history that damage Russias international prestige. In Iran,school textbooks seek to perpetuate the regimes theocratic ideology and promote an intolerant

and illiberal view of the world, while in Pakistan many of the countrys thousands of madrassas

10http://www.willyhoops.com/democracy-authoritarianism.htm 22/11/2009


16/18

teach children an intolerant theory of world affairs that demonizes those who do not subscribe to

an extreme interpretation of Islam.

During the Cold War, the nature and goals of the dominant authoritarian states were

clearer. In contrast, modern autocrats, integrated into the global economy and participating inmany of the world's established financial and political institutions, present a murkier challenge.

So far, policymakers in democracies have struggled to identify an effective approach to

these threats. This is all the more worrying because the lack of a clear response is happening

alongside a deeper debate in the United States over the inclusion of "the fourth D" -- democracy,

as an integral part of U.S. foreign policy, along with defense, diplomacy, and development. And

nothing would please the new authoritarians more than to see D No. 4 drop from the lexicon.


17/18

CHAPTER 3 CONCLUSION

Most of the readers of this research work will believe that a conclusion to this argument

will basically be a summary of the points of how democracy trumps authoritarian rule. But to

their disappointment this is not what I intend to do, nor do I intend to praise authoritarianism as abetter form of government.

In the course of painstaking research for this project, my observations have led to the

shattering of many preconceived notions I had about political formations. I realized that

democracy is an idealized government, looks perfect only on paper and does not live up to its

reputations of the best form of governance. My observations have led to the logical conclusion

that in fact no government can be called perfect. Government is nothing but a mechanism to

govern people and its effectiveness can be gauged by its ability to take collective decisions and

enforce them. Hence, different people require different ways of governing themselves and the

only claim to legitimacy a government should have is whether it delivers the goods or not. So, in

my perception; if a government can successfully maintain law and order in a society, achieve

economic development and ensure progress and prosperity of the nation in general without

causing widespread internal revolts, then that government should be called legitimate regardless

of how they choose their leaders.

In drawing a comparative analysis between the two forms of governments, I will never be

able to morally justify an authoritarian rule as in my opinion no reason can qualify as an

explanation to call an individual or even a group of individuals as the supreme authority in a

state. Conversely, I would not sing accolades for democracy either. Democracy, in my opinion

can be described as a headless chicken, for power and accountability is so divided that any

decision making process will be arduous and time consuming and therefore make it highly

inefficient. It is ironical that the politics we despise is the very one which ensures we live in a

democracy.

In the end, one can summarize up as that the authoritarianism we once saw after the

world wars is no more; instead its politically correct form as semi-authoritarianism is what we

see today. Additionally, there is a new wave of authoritarian governments which pose a big

challenge to democracy.


18/18

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. The Third Wave: Democratization in the late twentieth centuryBy Samuel P. Huntington, 1991 University of Oklahoma Press, U.S.A

2. Authoritarianism in an age of democratizationBy Jason Brownlee, 2007 Cambridge University Press, New York

3. Democracy Challenged: The Rise of Semi-AuthoritarianismBy Marina Ottaway, 2003 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Internet resources referred:

1. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/44640/authoritarianism 20/11/20092. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization. 21/11/20093. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-globalization.htm 21/11/20094. http://www.willyhoops.com/democracy-authoritarianism.htm 22/11/20095. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4bd4868e-6806-11dd-8d3b

0000779fd18c.html?nclick_check=1 22/11/2009

6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism 21/11/2009

Documents

POLITICAL SC. FINAL