|Part of the Politics series|
|Basic forms of government|
Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by strong central power and limited political freedoms. Juan Linz's influential 1964 description of authoritarianism characterized authoritarian political systems by four qualities:
- limited political pluralism; that is, such regimes place constraints on political institutions and groups like legislatures, political parties and interest groups;
- a basis for legitimacy based on emotion, especially the identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems" such as underdevelopment or insurgency;
- minimal social mobilization most often caused by constraints on the public such as suppression of political opponents and anti-regime activity;
- informally defined executive power with often vague and shifting powers.
Authoritarian government and states
Linz distinguished new forms of authoritarianism from personalistic dictatorships and totalitarian states, taking Francoist Spain as an example. Unlike personalistic dictatorships, new forms of authoritarianism have institutionalized representation of a variety of actors (in Spain's case, including the military, the Catholic Church, Falange, monarchists, technocrats and others); unlike totalitarian states, the regime relies on passive mass acceptance rather than popular support.
Several subtypes of authoritarian regimes have been identified by Linz and others. Linz identified the two most basic subtypes as traditional authoritarian regimes and bureaucratic-military authoritarian regimes:
- Traditional authoritarian regimes are those "in which the ruling authority (generally a single person)" is maintained in power "through a combination of appeals to traditional legitimacy, patron-client ties and repression, which is carried out by an apparatus bound to the ruling authority through personal loyalties"; an example is Ethiopia under Haile Selassie I.
- Bureacratic-military authoritarian regimes are those "governed by a coalition of military officers and technocrats who act pragmatically (rather than ideologically) within the limits of their bureaucratic mentality. Mark J. Gasiorowski suggests that it is best to distinguish "simple military authoritarian regimes" from "bureaucratic authoritarian regimes" in which "a powerful group of technocrats uses the state apparatus to try to rationalize and develop the economy" such as South Korea under Park Chung-hee.
- Corporatist authoritarian regimes "are those in which corporatism institutions are used extensively by the state to coopt and demobilize powerful interest groups"; this type has been studied most extensively in Latin America.
- Racial and ethnic "democracies" are those in which "certain racial or ethnic groups enjoy full democratic rights while others are largely or entirely denied those rights," such as in South Africa under apartheid.
- Post-totalitarian authoritarian regimes are those in which totalitarian institutions (such as the party, secret police and state-controlled mass media) remain, but where "ideological orthodoxy has declined in favor of routinization, repression has declined, the state's top leadership is less personalized and more secure, and the level of mass mobilization has declined substantially." Examples include the Soviet Eastern bloc states in the mid-1980s.
Authoritarian regimes are also sometimes subcategorized by whether they are personalistic or populist. Personalistic authoritarian regimes are characterized by arbitrary rule and authority exercised "mainly through patronage networks and coercion rather than through institutitions and formal rules." Personalistic authoritarian regimes have been seen in post-colonial Africa. By contrast, populist authoritarian regimes "are mobilizational regimes in which a strong, charismatic, manipulative leader rules through a coalition involving key lower-class groups." Examples include Argentina under Perón and Nasser in Egypt.
Authoritarianism is characterized by highly concentrated and centralized power maintained by political repression and the exclusion of potential challengers. It uses political parties and mass organizations to mobilize people around the goals of the regime. Adam Przeworski has theorized that "authoritarian equilibrium rests mainly on lies, fear and economic prosperity".
Authoritarianism also tends to embrace the informal and unregulated exercise of political power, a leadership that is "self-appointed and even if elected cannot be displaced by citizens' free choice among competitors," the arbitrary deprivation of civil liberties, and little tolerance for meaningful opposition.
A range of social controls also attempt to stifle civil society, while political stability is maintained by control over and support of the armed forces, a bureaucracy staffed by the regime, and creation of allegiance through various means of socialization and indoctrination.
Authoritarian political systems may be weakened through "inadequate performance to demands of the people." Vestal writes that the tendency to respond to challenges to authoritarianism through tighter control instead of adaptation is a significant weakness, and that this overly rigid approach fails to "adapt to changes or to accommodate growing demands on the part of the populace or even groups within the system." Because the legitimacy of the state is dependent on performance, authoritarian states that fail to adapt may collapse.
Authoritarianism is marked by "indefinite political tenure" of the ruler or ruling party (often in a one-party state) or other authority. The transition from an authoritarian system to a more democratic form of government is referred to as democratization.
John Duckitt suggests a link between authoritarianism and collectivism, asserting that both stand in opposition to individualism. Duckitt writes that both authoritarianism and collectivism submerge individual rights and goals to group goals, expectations and conformities.
Authoritarianism and totalitarianism
Totalitarianism is an extreme version of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism primarily differs from totalitarianism in that social and economic institutions exist that are not under governmental control. Building on the work of Yale political scientist Juan Linz, Paul C. Sondrol of the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs has examined the characteristics of authoritarian and totalitarian dictators and organized them in a chart:
|Role conception||Leader as function||Leader as individual|
|Ends of power||Public||Private|
(1) Unlike their bland and generally unpopular authoritarian brethren, totalitarian dictators develop a charismatic 'mystique' and a mass-based, pseudo-democratic interdependence with their followers via the conscious manipulation of a prophetic image.
(2) Concomitant role conceptions differentiate totalitarians from authoritarians. Authoritarians view themselves as individual beings largely content to control, and often maintain, the status quo. Totalitarian self-conceptions are largely teleological. The tyrant is less a person than an indispensable 'function' to guide and reshape the universe.
(3) Consequently, the utilisation of power for personal aggrandizement is more evident among authoritarians than totalitarians. Lacking the binding appeal of ideology, authoritarians support their rule by a mixture of instilling fear and granting rewards to loyal collaborators, engendering a kleptocracy.
Compared to totalitarianism, "the authoritarian state still maintains a certain distinction between state and society. It is only concerned with political power and as long as that is not contested it gives society a certain degree of liberty. Totalitarianism, on the other hand, invades private life and asphyxiates it." Another distinction is that "authoritarianism is not animated by utopian ideals in the way totalitarianism is. It does not attempt to change the world and human nature." Carl Joachim Friedrich writes that "a totalist ideology, a party reinforced by a secret police, and monopoly control of ... industrial mass society" are the three features of totalitarian regimes that distinguish them from other autocracies.
Authoritarianism and democracy
Authoritarianism and democracy are not fundamentally opposed to one another; it is thus definitely possible for democracies to possess strong authoritarian elements, for both feature a form of submission to authority. An illiberal democracy (or procedural democracy) is distinguished from liberal democracy (or substantive democracy) in that illiberal democracies lack the more democratic features of liberal democracies, such as the rule of law, an independent judiciary, along with a further distinction that liberal democracies have rarely made war with one another. More recent research has extended the theory and finds that more democratic countries tend to have few Militarized Interstate Disputes causing less battle deaths with one another, and that democracies have much fewer civil wars.
Some commentators, such as Seymour Martin Lipset, believed that low-income authoritarian regimes have certain technocratic, "efficiency-enhancing advantages" over low-income democracies, helping authoritarian regimes generate development. Morton H. Halperin, Joseph T. Siegle, and Michael M. Weinstein (2005) counter this belief, arguing that the evidence has showed that there is no "authoritarian advantage" and that there is a "democratic advantage" instead. Halperin et al. argue that democracies "realize superior development performance" over authoritarianism. They point out that poor democracies are more likely to have steadier economic growth, and less likely to experience economic and humanitarian catastrophes, than authoritarian regimes; that civil liberties act as a curb on corruption and misuse of resources; and that democracies are more adaptable. Halperin point out that the vast majority of refugee crises and financial catastrophes occur in authoritarian regimes.
Studies suggest that several health indicators (life expectancy and infant and maternal mortality) have a stronger and more significant association with democracy than they have with GDP per capita, size of the public sector, or income inequality.
Research shows that the democratic nations have much less democide or murder by government. However, it should be noted that those were also moderately developed nations before applying liberal democratic policies.
Research by the World Bank suggests that political institutions are extremely important in determining the prevalence of corruption, and that parliamentary systems, political stability and freedom of the press are all associated with lower corruption.
The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples of states which are currently (or frequently) characterized as authoritarian:
- Armenia under the Republican Party of Armenia (1998-)
- Azerbaijan under Ilham Aliyev (2003-)
- Bahrain under the House of Khalifa (1746-)
- Belarus under Alexander Lukashenko (1994-) on account of Lukashenko's self-described authoritarian style of government.
- Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge and Hun Sen (1985-)
- People's Republic of China under the Chinese Communist Party (1947-). "Some scholars have deemed the Chinese system a 'fragmented authoritarianism' (Lieberthal), a 'negotiated state' or a 'consultative authoritarian regime.'"
- Cuba under Fidel and Raúl Castro (1959-)
- Egypt under Abdel Fattah el-Sisi (2013-)
- Hungary under Viktor Orbán (1993-).
- Iran under Ali Khamenei (1981-). Linz wrote in 2000 that "it is difficult to fit the Iranian regime into the existing typology, as it combines the ideological bent of totalitarianism with the limited pluralism of authoritarianism and holds regular elections in which candidates advocate differing policies and incumbents are often defeated."
- Laos under the Lao People's Revolutionary Party (1975-)
- North Korea under the rule of the Kim dynasty and Korean Workers' Party (1947-)
- Poland under the Law and Justice party led by Andrzej Duda (2015-).
- Russia under Vladimir Putin (1999-) (see Putinism for more) - described as "really a mixture of authoritarianism and managed democracy."
- Saudi Arabia under the House of Saud (1744-)
- Syria under Bashar al-Assad (2000-)
- Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (2003-).
- Venezuela under Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro (1999-)
- Vietnam under the Vietnamese Communist Party (1976-)
Examples of states which were historically authoritarian:
- Argentina under the Argentine Revolution period of military rule (1966–1973) and later during the justicialista rule of Juan Perón (populist authoritarianism).
- Brazil during both the Estado Novo period under Getúlio Vargas (1937–1945) and under military government from a 1964 coup until a transition to democracy in the early and mid-1980s.
- Burma from a 1962 coup until a transition to democracy beginning in 2011.
- Chile under Augusto Pinochet from 1974 until a transition to democracy in 1990.
- Egypt under Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak from 1970 to 2011.
- Libya under Muammar Gaddafi from 1969 until his deposition and death in 2011 at the end of the Libyan Civil War.
- Republic of Macedonia under Nikola Gruevski (2006-2016)
- Portugal under the Estado Novo regime of António de Oliveira Salazar and Marcelo Caetano from 1932 to 1974.
- Spain under Francisco Franco from 1936 to 1975, when the Spanish transition to democracy began after Franco's death.
- South Africa under the National Party from 1948 until the end of apartheid in 1994.
- South Korea from the early 1970s until a transition to democracy in 1987.
- Taiwan from the February 28 Incident of 1947 until a transition to democracy in the late 1980s.
- Turkey from 1925 through 1945, when a transition to democracy began.
- Poland under Józef Piłsudski and Ignacy Mościcki until World War II (1918-1939)
After World War II there was a strong sense of anti-authoritarianism based on anti-fascism in Europe. This was attributed to the active resistance from occupation and to fears arising from the development of superpowers. Anti-authoritarianism also became associated with countercultural and bohemian movements such as the Beat Generation in the 1950s, the hippies in the 1960s and punks in the 1970s.
According to a study by Brandt and Henry there is a direct correlation between the rates of gender inequality and the levels of authoritarian ideas in the male and female populations. It was found that in countries with less gender equality where individualism was encouraged and men occupied the dominant societal roles, women were more likely to support traits such as obedience which would allow them to survive in an authoritarian environment, and less likely to encourage ideas such as independence and imagination. In countries with higher levels of gender equality, men held more authoritarian views. It is theorized that this occurs due to the stigma attached to individuals who question the cultural norms set by the dominant individuals and establishments in an authoritarian society as a way to prevent the psychological stress caused by the active ostracizing of the stigmatized individuals.
- Richard Shorten, Modernism and Totalitarianism: Rethinking the Intellectual Sources of Nazism and Stalinism, 1945 to the Present (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), p. 256 (note 67).
- Gretchen Casper, Fragile Democracies: The Legacies of Authoritarian Rule, p. 40-50 (citing Linz 1964).
- Todd Landman, Studying Human Rights (Routledge, 2003), p. 71 (citing Linz 1964 and others).
- Mark J. Gasiorowski, The Political Regimes Project, in On Measuring Democracy: Its Consequences and Concomitants (ed. Alex Inketes), 2006, p. 110-11.
- Theodore M. Vesta, Ethiopia: A Post-Cold War African State. Greenwood, 1999, p. 17.
- Przeworski, Adam (1991-07-26). Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521423359.
- Duckitt, J. (1989). "Authoritarianism and Group Identification: A New View of an Old Construct". Political Psychology 10 (1): 63–84. doi:10.2307/3791588. JSTOR 3791588 – via JSTOR. (registration required (. ))
- Kemmelmeier, M.; Burnstein, E.; Krumov, K.; Genkova, P.; Kanagawa, C.; Hirshberg, M. S.; Erb, H. P.; Wieczorkowska, G.; Noels, K. A. (2003). "Individualism, Collectivism, and Authoritarianism in Seven Societies". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 34 (3): 304. doi:10.1177/0022022103034003005.
- Sondrol, P. C. (2009). "Totalitarian and Authoritarian Dictators: A Comparison of Fidel Castro and Alfredo Stroessner". Journal of Latin American Studies 23 (3): 599. doi:10.1017/S0022216X00015868.
- Radu Cinpoes, Nationalism and Identity in Romania: A History of Extreme Politics from the Birth of the State to EU Accession, p. 70.
- Hegre, Håvard, Tanja Ellington, Scott Gates, and Nils Petter Gleditsch (2001). "Towards A Democratic Civil Peace? Opportunity, Grievance and Civil War 1816-1992". American Political Science Review 95: 33–48. Archived from the original on 2004-04-06.
- Ray, James Lee (2013). A Lakatosian View of the Democratic Peace Research Program From Progress in International Relations Theory, edited by Colin and Miriam Fendius Elman (PDF). MIT Press.
- Morton H. Halperin, Joseph T. Siegle, & Michael M. Weinstein, The Democracy Advantage: How Democracies Promote Prosperity and Peace (Council on Foreign Relations/Psychology Press, 2005).
- Franco, Á.; Álvarez-Dardet, C.; Ruiz, M. T. (2004). "Effect of democracy on health: ecological study". BMJ 329 (7480): 1421–1423. doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7480.1421. PMC 535957. PMID 15604165.
- Sen, A. K. (1999). "Democracy as a Universal Value". Journal of Democracy 10 (3): 3–1. doi:10.1353/jod.1999.0055.
- R. J. Rummel (1997). Power kills: democracy as a method of nonviolence. New Brunswick, New Jersey, United States U.S.A: Transaction Publishers. ISBN 1-56000-297-2.
- Daniel Lederman, Normal Loaza, & Rodrigo Res Soares, Accountability and Corruption: Political Institutions Matter, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2708 (November 2001).
- Harvard News Office (2004-11-04). "Harvard Gazette: Freedom squelches terrorist violence". News.harvard.edu. Retrieved 2012-02-02.
- OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting
- Vincent, Rebecca (19 May 2013). "When the music dies: Azerbaijan one year after Eurovision". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 10 June 2013.
Over the past several years, Azerbaijan has become increasingly authoritarian, as the authorities have used tactics such as harassment, intimidation, blackmail, attack and imprisonment to silence the regime's critics, whether journalists, bloggers, human rights defenders, political activists or ordinary people taking to the streets in protest.
- Nebil Husayn, Authoritarianism in Bahrain: Motives, Methods and Challenges, AMSS 41st Annual Conference (September 29, 2012); Parliamentary Elections and Authoritarian Rule in Bahrain (January 13, 2011), Stanford University
- Rausing, Sigrid (7 October 2012). "Belarus: inside Europe's last dictatorship". The Guardian (London). Retrieved 7 August 2014.
- "Belarus's Lukashenko: "Better a dictator than gay"". Berlin. Reuters. 4 March 2012.
...German Foreign Minister's branding him 'Europe's last dictator'
- "Profile: Alexander Lukashenko". BBC News (BBC). 9 January 2007. Retrieved 7 August 2014.
'..an authoritarian ruling style is characteristic of me [Lukashenko]'
- "Essential Background – Belarus". Human Rights Watch. 2005. Retrieved 26 March 2006.
- "Human rights by country – Belarus". Amnesty International Report 2007. Amnesty International. 2007. Archived from the original on 12 December 2007. Retrieved 22 December 2007.
- Elisabeth Bumiller (November 16, 2012). "In Cambodia, Panetta Reaffirms Ties With Authoritarian Government". New York Times.
- Ming Xia, China Rises Companion: Political Governance, New York Times. See also Cheng Li, The End of the CCP’s Resilient Authoritarianism? A Tripartite Assessment of Shifting Power in China (September 2012), The China Quarterly, Vol. 211; Perry Link and Joshua Kurlantzick, China's Modern Authoritarianism (May 25, 2009), Wall Street Journal; Ariana Eunjung Cha, China, Cuba, Other Authoritarian Regimes Censor News From Iran (June 27, 2009), Washington Post.
- Ariana Eunjung Cha, China, Cuba, Other Authoritarian Regimes Censor News From Iran (June 27, 2009), Washington Post; Shanthi Kalathil and Taylor Boas, Internet and State Control in Authoritarian Regimes: China, Cuba and the Counterrevolution (July 16, 2001), Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
- Amr Adly, The Economics of Egypt’s Rising Authoritarian Order, Carnegie Middle East Center, June 18, 2014; Nathan J. Brown & Katie Bentivoglio, Egypt's Resurgent Authoritarianism: It's a Way of Life, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, October 9, 2014.
- Mehrdad Kia, The Making of Modern Authoritarianism in Contemporary Iran, in Modern Middle East Authoritarianism: Roots, Ramifications, and Crisis (Routledge: 2013; eds. Noureddine Jebnoun, Mehrdad Kia & Mimi Kirk), pp. 75-76.
- Juan José Linz, Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes (Lynne Rienner, 2000), p. 36.
- Beckert, Jen. "Communitarianism." International Encyclopedia of Economic Sociology. London: Routledge, 2006. 81.
- Daniel Byman, Pyongyang’s Survival Strategy: Tools of Authoritarian Control in North Korea, International Security, Vol. 35, issue 1, pp. 44-74 (Summer 2010); Chico Harlan, In authoritarian North Korea, hints of reform, Washington Post, September 3, 2012.
- Nikolay Petrov and Michael McFaul, The Essence of Putin's Managed Democracy (October 18, 2005), Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Tom Parfitt, Billionaire tycoon Mikhail Prokhorov who is running in 4 March election says it is time for evolution not revolution (January 11, 2012), Guardian; Richard Denton, Russia's 'managed democracy' (May 11, 2006), BBC News.
- "Nations in Transit 2014 - Russia". Freedom House.
- "The Myth of the Authoritarian Model - How Putin’s Crackdown Holds Russia Back" (PDF). The Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford.
- Toby Craig Jones, Desert Kingdom: How Oil and Water Forged Modern Saudi Arabia (2011), Harvard University Press, pp. 5, 14-15; Kira D. Baiasu, Sustaining Authoritarian Rule, Fall 2009, Volume 10, Issue 1 (September 30, 2009), Northwestern Journal of International Affairs.
- Heydemann, Steven; Leenders, Reinoud (2013). Middle East Authoritarianisms: Governance, Contestation, and Regime Resilience in Syria and Iran. Stanford University Press. p. 13. ISBN 978-0804793339.
- Human Rights Watch, Venezuela: Chávez’s Authoritarian Legacy: Dramatic Concentration of Power and Open Disregard for Basic Human Rights, March 5, 2013; Kurt Weyland, Latin America's Authoritarian Drift: The Threat from the Populist Left, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 24, No. 3 (July 2013), pp. 18-32.
- Thomas Fuller, In Hard Times, Open Dissent and Repression Rise in Vietnam (April 23, 2013), New York Times
- Todd L. Edwards, Argentina: A Global Studies Handbook (2008), pp. 45-46; Steven E. Sanderson, The Politics of Trade in Latin American Development (1992), Stanford University Press, p. 133; William C. Smith, Reflections on the Political Economy of Authoritarian Rule and Capitalist Reorganization in Contemporary Argentina, in Generals in Retreat: The Crisis of Military Rule in Latin America (1985), eds. Philip J. O'Brien & Paul A. Cammack, Manchester University Press.
- Guillermo A. O'Donnell, Bureaucratic Authoritarianism: Argentina, 1966-1973, in Comparative Perspective (University of California Press, 1988); James M. Malloy, Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America: The Modal Pattern, in Democracy in Latin America: Patterns and Cycles (1996; ed. Roderic A. Camp), p. 122; Howard J. Wiards, Corporatism and Comparative Politics: The Other Great "ism" (1997), pp. 113-14.
- James M. Malloy, Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America: The Modal Pattern, in Democracy in Latin America: Patterns and Cycles (ed. Roderic A. Camp), p. 122; Thomas E. Skidmore, The Political Economy of Policy-making in Authoritarian Brazil, 1967-70, in Generals in Retreat: The Crisis of Military Rule in Latin America (1985), eds. Philip J. O'Brien & Paul A. Cammack, Manchester University Press.
- Thomas Carothers, Q&A: Is Burma Democratizing? (April 2, 2012), Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; President Discusses Burma/Myanmar in Transition at World Affairs Council Sacramento (April 3, 2013), Asia Foundation; Louise Arbour, In Myanmar, Sanctions Have Had Their Day (March 5, 2012), New York Times.
- Steven E. Sanderson, The Politics of Trade in Latin American Development (1992), Stanford University Press, p. 133; Carlos Huneeus, Political Mass Mobilization Against Authoritarian Rule: Pinochet's Chile, 1983-88, in Civil Resistance and Power Politics:The Experience of Non-violent Action from Gandhi to the Present (2009), Oxford University Press (eds. Adam Roberts & Timothy Garton Ash).
- Maye Kassem, Egyptian Politics: The Dynamics of Authoritarian Rule (2004); Andrea M. Perkins, Mubarak's Machine: The Durability of the Authoritarian Regime in Egypt (M.A. thesis, April 8, 2010, University of South Florida).
- Gaddafi's 41-Year-Long Rule, Washington Post; Martin Asser, The Muammar Gaddafi Story (October 21, 2011), BBC News; Alistair Dawber, One Libyan in three wants return to authoritarian rule (February 16, 2012), Independent.
- Matthew Brunwasser, Concerns Grow About Authoritarianism in Macedonia, The New York Times, October 13, 2011.
- Andrew MacDowall, Fears for Macedonia's fragile democracy amid 'coup' and wiretap claims, The Guardian, February 27, 2015.
- Richard Gunther, The Spanish Model Revisited, in The Politics and Memory of Democratic Transition: The Spanish Model, (eds. Diego Muro & Gregorio Alonso), Taylor & Francis 2010, p. 19.
- Tracy Kuperus, Building a Pluralist Democracy: An Examination of Religious Associations in South Africa and Zimbabwe, in Race and Reconciliation in South Africa: A Multicultural Dialogue in Comparative Perspective (eds. William E. Van Vugt & G. Daan Cloete), Lexington Books, 2000.
- The South Africa Reader: History, Culture, Politics (eds. Clifton Crais & Thomas V. McClendon; Duke University Press, 2014), p. 279.
- Hyug Baeg Im, The Rise of Bureaucratic Authoritarianism in South Korea, World Politics Vol. 39, Issue 2 (January 1987), pp. 231-257
- The Other R.O.K.: Memories of Authoritarianism in Democratic South Korea (October 11, 2011), Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; Sangmook Lee, Democratic Transition and the Consolidation of Democracy in South Korea, July 2007, Taiwan Journal of Democracy, Volume 3, No.1, pp. 99-125.
- Leng, Shao-chuan; Lin, Cheng-yi (1993). "Political Change on Taiwan: Transition to Democracy?". The China Quarterly (Cambridge University Press) (136): 805–39. ISSN 0305-7410. JSTOR 655592 – via JSTOR. (registration required (. )); Shirley A. Kan, Congressional Research Service, Democratic Reforms in Taiwan: Issues for Congress (May 26, 2010); Taiwan's Electoral Politics and Democratic Transition: Riding the Third Wave (1996), eds. Charles Chi-Hsiang Chang & Hung-Mao Tien; Edward S. Steinfeld, Playing Our Game:Why China's Rise Doesn't Threaten the West (2010), Oxford University Press, pp. 217-222.
- Erik J. Zürcher, Turkey: A Modern History (I.B. Tauris: rev. ed. 1997), pp. 176-206.
- Ayse Gül Altinay, The Myth of the Military-Nation: Militarism, Gender, and Education in Turkey (Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), pp. 19-20.
- Cox, David (2005). Sign Wars: The Culture Jammers Strike Back!. LedaTape Organisation. p. 108. ISBN 978-0-9807701-5-5. Retrieved 22 October 2011.
- "The American Novel" at PBS website
- "The way of the hippie is antithetical to all repressive hierarchical power structures since they are adverse to the hippie goals of peace, love and freedom ... Hippies don't impose their beliefs on others. Instead, hippies seek to change the world through reason and by living what they believe."Stone 1994, "The Way of the Hippy"
- McLaughlin, Paul (2007). Anarchism and Authority. Aldershot: Ashgate. p. 10. ISBN 0-7546-6196-2.
- Brandt, Mark J.; Henry, P. J. (2012). "Gender Inequality and Gender Differences in Authoritarianism". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38 (10): 1301–1315. doi:10.1177/0146167212449871.
- Juan J. Linz, An Authoritarian Regime: The Case of Spain, in Cleavages, Ideologies and Party Systems (eds. Eric Allard & Yrjo Littunen) (Helsinki: Academic, 1964)