From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Republic of Macedonia[edit]

Republic of Macedonia is not an Authoritarian state, the citations are only to two newspaper articles. Non of them showing the authoritarian rule, Yes Macedonia have a political crisis, and large debate on the new buildings and statues, but there is a debate. Please remove Republic of Macedonia from the list as there is no evidence, and no real source of such a claim.

But Montenegro is an authoritarian state.-- (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

NPOV dispute [Examples of authoritarian states][edit]

The citations for a lot of these countries are very opinionated and demand review.

An example is Egypt's citation which is this news article reporting an unfair trial which took place which saw the execution of a great many of Mohamed Morsi's supporters. This is barely relevant and certainly cannot be listed as the citation to prove the validity of Egypt being on this list of examples.

I am not disputing whether or not Egypt should be on the list of example Authoritarian states (because I do agree with it being there), I just think this source should be fixed as well as for other countries which may have similar, faulty sources. Apologies if this was the wrong way to start this discussion or bring this to your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selim (talkcontribs) 05:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Amending wrong edit[edit]

I delete all parts of definition concerning "source of power" which were added by me previously. I found I wrongly interpreted ideas of Dr. C.W. Chan from the University of Hong Kong at that time. He only defines dictatorship in terms of "source of power" but I incorrectly mixed up the concept of dictatorship and authoritarianism. The contrasts should be democracy to dictatorship, and liberalism to totalitarianism. Salt 10:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No title[edit]

"Another country once considered authoritarian is Spain, under Franco. Some considered Totalitarian are Cuba and North Korea."

My god aren't Nazi Germany and USSR under Stalin more obvious examples than Cuba and North Korea ?

Ericd 21:15 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, but the article classifies these as totalitarian, rather than authoritarian. I think these two articles should be merged: totalitarianism is simply the extreme case of authoritarianism.
-- Anon,
I'm not sure IMO totalitarianism has a strong ideologic support while authoritarianism is more pragmatic.
Is authoritarianism equal to non-democracy or not is an absolute monarchy a form of authoritarianism ?
Ericd 22:04 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)
What would be your classification of an enlightened despotic ruler who allows for e.g. freedom of religion and to speak your own language, versus someone who does not, like Franco or perhaps Constantine (in the interests of forcing some national unification of a disparate population) or someone who wants to dictate all the aspects of your life and mold you into a drone to do his bidding such as Hitler, Stalin or Mao?
The first can approach a democratic rule in that it caters for the interests of everyone and is flexible (more libertarian) while the last is completely different. The rarity of totalitarian regimes suggests these are significantly different from authoritarian regimes to be classified differently. IMHO.
Truly libertarian regimes are rare (do they exist for long at all?) because every community needs some sort of rules and enforcement in order to endure. Otherwise it risks destruction from within.
A society without any rules and enforcement is known as Anarchy. This is different from a Libertarian regime. Also I believe that the phrase "Theocracies are always Authoritarian" should be changed to something less absolute. Finally I believe that a connection to Fascism should be made as these two go greatly together. Bengaska 02:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous (, 4:15 July, 2003 (UTC)

"Giant Flying Brick Vandalism" I will put it back in order. Find the culprit. Hadrian

A number of related pages have just been edited by the same, anonymous user (, all illiterately, some PoV. I've just reverted this article to the last unaffected version. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've just tidied the English of the article, and found this sentence: “In addition, critics of the thesis of developmental authoritarianism point to India, which had impressive of social forces that forced a transition to democracy.” Something's obviously missing from it, so I've removed it until I (or someone else) can rewrite it so that it makes sense. It was also inserted oddly between two sentences concerning S.E. Asia, so it would need to be moved somewhhere more sensible. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Spain under Franco[edit]

Could a source be given for the claim about economic success, and something less vague and subjective than "noticeable" be used to describe it? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I politely ask that the statement "For example, the Roman Catholic Church can be accurately described as authoritarian; however, in modern times it lacks the means to use force to enforce its edicts and is not a totalitarian establishment." be changed. It suggests that the Roman Catholic Church would use oppressive means if it had the power to do so. Such a suggestion is entirely a matter of oppinion.

I think it is clear that in the past the Catholic Church did use oppressive means to enforce edicts. However you are right that it the reason for the change is not the absence of 'the means to use force', but rather the modern perception that the use of such force is unacceptable has led to a change in the willingness of the Church to use force and hence led to a change in policy. I will npov the article accordingly. Ppe42 11:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


I believe the section titled "Actions of authoritarian governments" is completely unnecessary in this piece. The author of it seems hung up on two current liberal agendas in the United States, namely gay rights and striking down of the Patriot Act. The section is something that in as little as 10 years will look sadly pithy, dated, and agenda driven, which should never be true of an honest definition. In fact, using the logic of these "examples of authoritarianism", any government that has any kind of law is "authoritarianistic" so long as someone wishes to break that law without facing enforcement. The examples used under democracy, indeed show democracy (or in this case, the US Republic)in action by its very definition... majority rule. I am not trying to defend democracy, I am just noticing unrelated agendas in this section. I would bet money that the bit was written by an outspoken gay liberal American, frustrated by the current state of his country. Any takers? (Personally I feel that England's government structure is better (in theoretical terms) than that in the US, though I think it would be better still if the royal family played a larger philosophical role.)


Should discuss other relationships that are authoritarian. For instance parent-child relationships. Corporations are also very highly authoritarian as they are coerced cooperation. Thanks.

Brave new world predicted[edit]

Wikipedia is Big Brother, you sit there editing the past to conform to what is commonly assumed to be correct, you've started the end of human civilisation and freedom! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 07:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


Im a french student living in indonesia. I've lived in Indonesia for 15 years now and doubt that indonesia is an authoritarianist nation. It definitely used to be under Suharto's regime, but it is no more. This is a free country and probably the only free and democratic country in south-east asia. Thailand is authoritarianist though, well at least if people believe that Thailand is free country, then Indonesia should also be considered a free country.

Could someone change the map since I don't have the technical ability to do it... 

Thankyou I think you took that book 1984 a little to seriosly. (anonomus) Oops I meant to put this on the one ubove.(anonomus)

Recent edits[edit]

I removed following text: However, this can be contested because even allegedly individualistic societies such as liberal democratic states show authoritarian tendencies where individuals are ranked in social hierarchies and democratic decisions are made by powerful leaders. Authors such as Noam Chomsky have commented on this asserting that presidential elections are funded by concentrations of private power and run by the public relations industry.

First sentence is original research, and second is irrelevant to the subject. The source [2], as I can see, doesn’t support claim in the first sentence, nor it mentions "authoritarianism". -- Vision Thing -- 20:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The above is actually a common POV, and WP:CITE is not an offical policy, while WP:NPOV is. 21:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

hi boys its matt clarke

Citing Communism as Authoritarian[edit]

National Communism (e.g. Stalinism) is Authoritarian. International Communism is not. I am inclined to change this citation. Muigwithania 22:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree totally, Communism itself, at least the society advocated by Karl Marx is not an authoritarian system at all. As a matter of fact it is described as a stateless society run by workers, sort of a collective direct democracy. Of course this has never been acheived and outside of the Anarchist experiment in Spanish Catalonia during the civil war never even attempted. Still the original reference to Communism was far to simplistic and vague, so I altered it. As a distinction should really by made between Marxism and Marxism-Leninism. I realize that most communists see Leninism as being the practical application of Marxism, not all communists do. Examples being Left communism, Luxemburgism, etc. and of course governments led by Marxists that have supported political openness. (Canadianpunk77 (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC))

Marxism states that it begins as authoritarian (revolutionary socialism) and ends as anarchy (socioeconomic anarcho-socialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

How about the broader meaning of authoritarianism?[edit]

Authoritarianism is also a large factor in the development of belief systems. Reliance on authority as a source of knowledge leaves societies open to all kinds of distortion of the truth.

The obvious 1984 (George Orwell) reference to Doublespeak is only caricaturized portrayal of our current reality - media tells us what's going on - and we believe them.

The Internet is a force for moving towaard more first-hand access to info - but credibility of all netinfo is questionable! Where does that leave us? I'm not sure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robdashu (talkcontribs) 01:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Electoral authoritarianism[edit]

This article mentions democratic authoritarianism. I am far from an expert on the issue, but I wonder if the name of this type of authoritarianism shouldn't be changed. There seems to be a growing body of literature that refers to such regimes as "electoral authortarianism." The Journal of Democracy had a series of articles using the phrase "electoral authoritarianism," including Elections Without Democracy: Thinking about Hybrid Regimes. The International Political Science Association held discussions on electoral authoritarianism. Also, there have been a number of books published on the series, such as Electoral Authoritarianism: The Dynamics of Unfree Competition. Applying the theroy to country studies, there is The Fujimori Legacy: The Rise of Electoral Authoritarianism in Peru. I think that the basic idea is that many scholors believe that such regimes shouldn't be called "democratic authoritarianist" or democratic anything because in reality they don't deserve to be called democracies. All in all, someone might want to at very least add the phrase to this article, and perhaps even start an electoral authoritarianism article. --Descendall (talk) 10:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Text dump - uncited[edit]

Authoritarianism and the Economy[edit]

In the late 20th-century political elites in East and Southeast Asia argued that countries with authoritarian regimes were more likely to be economically successful than democratic countries. Examples given to support this argument were South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, and Taiwan all of which were authoritarian and experiencing a period of rapid growth.

The belief that authoritarian governments were likely to economically out-perform democracies was reconsidered in 1997 during the Asian financial crisis.

There are of course many instances of authoritarian nations that have not encountered rapid economic growth. A good historical example is Spain in post-war Europe. More recent examples of poor economic performance in nations with authoritarian regimes are Myanmar and Zimbabwe.

Despite the Asian financial crisis the idea of developmental authoritarianism remains an attractive route to economic expansion in many developing nations. The Communist Party of China, which presides over the world’s fastest growing economy, uses this concept today as justification for its authoritarian rule.

While the link between political authoritarianism and economic growth may not be precisely understood, thinkers in anarchist and anti-authoritarian traditions have examined the "economy" itself as a realm of authoritarianism. In particular, similarities between business corporations and the state have often been highlighted. Both institutions are hierarchical, collective entities with clearly delineated chains of authority and command.

The Middle East and Middle Asia[edit]

The 21st century has the Middle East region with the highest concentration of authoritarian nations in the world. This is usually explained by reference to the region's cultural specificity (for example Bernard Lewis - Islam and the West) or its political economy.

It is true that historically the region has experienced an authoritarian tradition as exemplified by the Ottoman (13th Century to early 20th Century) and Mamluk (13th Century to early 16th Century) Empires; however, using culture to explain the region’s current political situations is rather a blunt tool. Cultural explanations fail to allow for regional diversity, are unable to account, or indeed allow, for progression and via their narrow focus fail to see the correlates between this region and other developing nations such as the People's Republic of China which have only relatively recently become members of the global political economy.

A Political Economy Approach[edit]

Political economists argue that the predominance of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East can be explained by reference to the regions economic development. Internal and external factors need to be considered and the interaction between them if a coherent argument is to be made.

External factors include a consideration of the regional and national impact of colonialism and the point at which each of these nations joined the global economy. Internal factors such as indigenous social structures and pre-existing modes of production also need to be explored.


The territorial boundaries of most Middle East nations were determined by Colonial powers in the inter-war period following the break-up of the Ottoman Empire. Roger Owen argues that this is an important factor when considering the relationship between the state and its citizens. Clearly an imposed nationhood does not carry with it a presupposition of unity. Colonised nations were required to contribute to the economy of their governors. Stability and therefore control of the populace was an important feature of the state infrastructure. In the Colonial period, ‘typically, some two thirds of public expenditure was security related.’ (Owen. 1993. p10). The historical legacy of colonialism for the citizens of Middle Eastern states was therefore one of imposed unity, economic exploitation and a state intent on controlling rather than consulting its populace.

The Global World Economy[edit]

Colonial states were turned into the globe's producers of raw materials. They serviced and supported the capitalist economies of their colonizing country. Dependency Theory adherents therefore suggest that economic under-development in the Middle East is a result of entering the global economy in a subordinate position. In other words exploitation rather than cultural specivity.

A very different economically based theory is the "no representation without taxation" theory.[1] This posits that people will generally only demand control over their government if they are taxed; so that a government which can fund itself and pay for civic services by exporting oil or other natural resources, rather than taxing the people, can survive as an authoritarian regime.

Indigenous Social Structures and Modes of Production[edit]

The authoritarian traditions of the Middle East have changed and evolved over time as the social, political and economic situation has changed. Political economists such as Nazih Ayubi argue that systems of patronage and clientelism are not the result of essential cultural traits but rather an outcome of articulated modes of production. The co-existing and articulated modes of production Ayubi refers to are those of capitalist waged labour and those indigenous to the Middle East for example artisans, merchants, crop-sharing.

Clientelism, which Ayubi describes as, ‘informal ties in which services (and some goods) are exchanged between people of unequal status’ (Ayubi. 2001. p169), as a concept has developed to accommodate these articulated modes of production in a macro-political setting. The resulting political structure is authoritarian corporatism. Political and economic power resides with the state which adopts the role of arbiter and mediates between a variety of social groups. With no class hegemony civil society becomes subordinate to the state.

--Neutralitytalk 23:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Religion and authoritarianism[edit]

The article should maybe show the controversial relationship between religion and authoritarianism. Many authoritarian countries such as medieval France, the Byzantine empire, Spain's Franco, contemporary Iran and tribal India are or were known to have relation-based nationalism and authoritarianism. ADM (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The Islamic Republic of Iran is a totalitarian State.--Anders Sjolfdjord (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Correlation does not imply causation[edit]

I'm confused. The criticism part seems to contain alot of A happens B happens... *hint hint* A caused B. I'm not especially happy about authoritarianism, I personally hate it but I don't know. The criticism part seems to be full of implications?

Lets say its a fact that melons are smaller under regimes with authoritarianism, and bigger under democracies.. then surely this does not automatically mean authoritarianism shrinks melons?

Little help here? Can someone explain to me please :) Annoying username (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


The sources here are a mess. Many of the links are now broken ("The Democracy Advantage", for example) or direct to unrelated pages (like "Towards a Democratic Peace?"); these need to be fixed or removed. If somebody wants to give this article a proper cleanup, going through the sources will be necessary. -Michael Sappir (Talk) 01:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Authoritarianism other than government[edit]

The intro today says:

Authoritarianism describes a form of government characterized by an emphasis on the authority of the state in a republic or union.

But this is a markedly narrow idea of "authoritarianism"; really only one use of the word. "Authoritarianism" describes a style of social behavior found in many spheres of life: notably in family and sexual relations, in corporate or workplace management, and in religion. The notion of authoritarian family structures is found in historical studies of the family (see pater familias) as well as in the psychoanalytic literature (Freud and Reich) -- and, of course, in feminist and anarcha-feminist literature (see patriarchy).

Or, put another way, authoritarian politics is not limited to the state, but is found in many other regions of society. --FOo (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


If people who watch this page are also interested in how Wikipedia is governed, be sure to check out this: . Slrubenstein | Talk 13:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Pejorative term?[edit]

Would it be fair to describe 'authoritarianism' as a pejorative term, used only by people who are opposed to it? Or are there any groups or individuals that identify themselves as 'authoritarian'? Robofish (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Does something become pejorative because those who are described as such do not wish to be so described? —Zujine|talk 15:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Usually, yes; that's precisely how it works. (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"rule of man over the rule of law"[edit]

This is nonsensical! Law is man-made, any "ruling" proclaimed by anyone with the power to do so (which is another dubious problem) is both a rule by "man" and by "law." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlon (talkcontribs) 18:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The only explanation I can think of is that the leaders aren't bound to the law of the land, but even then it's not necessarily true. The entire Characteristics section seems to contain a bias that violates the Neutral Point of View and should probably be flagged, several philosophers advocated authoritarian rule, especially for larger states, Montesquieu being particularly notable for suggesting that democracy only suited smaller states, Monarchism was most suited to medium sized states, and Despotism was most appropriate for large states. See Despotism#History Pongley (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I feel, personally, their is a difference between 'legal' and 'lawful'. DeadFire999 (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

"a bureaucracy that operates independently of rules"[edit]

This is an oxymoron! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlon (talkcontribs) 18:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Democracy is authoritarian[edit]

Democracy as in rule by the people means that the individual has to submit to the will expressed by the collective. This means that democracy is inherently authoritarian. Amakan (talkcontribs) 00:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Under that definition, any form of government, except anarchism, is authoritarian. As law, as opposed to agreements, require submission and is enforced by force, not reason. [User:rxantos] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rxantos (talkcontribs) 06:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


Why exactly is China singled out in this article, and is that one-sided rant really appropriate for wikipedia? Sounds like something from a Falun Gong adherent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the paragraph was long. But I'd really like to see other sections just as long. Really, in our modern world of 2012, there are probably about 50 governments which can be viewed as authoritarian, overly so and unnecessarily so. I'd like to have mid-sized paragraphs about any or all of them. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

previous China section[edit]

"The government of China is generally considered to be a modern authoritarian government. China is ruled by one party only, known as the Communist Party. The President of the People’s Republic of China in 2012 is Hu Jintao, who has held this position since 2003. However, the president is essentially a figurehead as he enjoys symbolic significance, but is both voted in by the National People’s Congress[2] (China’s parliament)[3] alone and acts according to the decisions made by this single group. The National People’s Congress also holds the exclusive authority to remove the Chinese President from power.[4] Policies in China are created in high-level meetings, in which the general population has no input into the choices that are made for them. The government of China keeps watch over the Chinese internet meticulously, looking for anything that may be considered politically sensitive. They also block major social networking websites such as Facebook and Twitter, as they are concerned that citizens may use these sites to organize public demonstrations. Furthermore, some citizens who have posted information on the Internet that is pro-democratic have been harassed and are sometimes even imprisoned.[5] Another measure that the government of China has taken which many argue infringes on the rights of its citizens is the enforcement of the one-child policy of 1979, which limits each couple who are ethnic Han Chinese living in urban areas to one child. While this was done for purposes of population control, it has led to the killing or abandonment of many female babies (so that the couple may instead have a son to carry on their family name). Also, there have been multiple consequences for parents who have more than one child, including fines, pressure to abort, and forced sterilization.[6]"

  1. ^
  2. ^ "The Election of the President". Retrieved 2012-02-02. 
  3. ^ "Profile: China's National People's Congress". BBC News. 2010-03-05. Retrieved 2012-02-02. 
  4. ^ "Status of the President". Retrieved 2012-02-02. 
  5. ^ [1][dead link]
  6. ^ "China One Child Policy - Overview of the One Child Policy in China". 2006-05-17. Retrieved 2012-02-02. 
One thing I used to know from the 1980s was about Guatemala. Anything like a trade union or an agricultural coop, or any dissent, was viewed as unaccepted. And whether the powers-that-be really believed such were "communist," they sure played the label game during the Cold War days to get military funding. And much of what happened was just rank prejudice and squelching of various indigenous groups by the dominant Hispanic culture. And there was a rebel army. So there was some kernel of truth about armend insurrection, but exaggerated and overblown response. The official Guatamalan army became the prime human rights abusers.
I hope things have improved in Guatamala. I really don't know. I kind of think, things were so bad, can't really have improved that much. But human beings are resilient and can sometimes be quite remarkable.
Time permitting, we can use sources like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
Okay, coming back to China. Well, population-wise, it is the worldest largest country. And for that, if for no other reason, it's worth covering in some detail. Plus, we do have some information.
I added back most of the above paragraph with some editing. I say, let's keep most of the China information, and at the same time, try and add some other countries and areas of the world. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Tyranny by the Majority[edit]

"In politics, an authoritarian government is one in which political authority is concentrated in a small group of politicians.[1]"

How does the introductory statement make a distinction between authoritarianism by the majority and authoritarianism by the few?

The statement indicates that authoritarianism only originates through the impetus of internal government.

Authoritarianism is a degree of constrictive government management, but its is often substantiated upon the opinions and attitudes of a demographic.

GeMiJa (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

GeMiJa, could you maybe point me to some reference material that elaborates on what you've brought up here. I want to make sure that I understand what you're talking about since your comments above are brief while the topic is quite broad. —Zujine|talk 04:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

First phrase nonsense ?![edit]

This is also a form of goverment where you will be slapped unconcious in front of your own momma for not voting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Biased and Western Point-of-View Article.[edit]

This article is quite biased, and apparently seems to categorize any non-Westernized/Democratic state as "authoritarian", which is what the inclusion of monarchies entails. The sections titled "Examples of states which are currently (or frequently) characterized as authoritarian: "Characterized" by whom? I've lived in Saudi Arabia, no one regards the House of Saud as "authoritarian". And how come the Islamic leaders of Iran are regarded as "authoritarian" but not the deposed (and not insignificantly pro-Western) Shah? And why is the "gender" section even here? Does every Wikipedia article have to include a feminist interpretation now? But seeing as how most Wikipedia editors tend to be Westerners I'm sure if I remove something you're just put back in. Because "West is Best" and all that jazz.

Saudi Arabia and Iran are both extremly repressive States, the first one is an absolute Monarchy and the second one is a totalitarian State with pseudo-democractic elements.-- (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan[edit]

Enough with removing RTE from this article. Like i said in my previous edit summary All those leaders or countries define themselves as democratic. It is the general view thats makes them Authoritarian. In fact RTE has the most references on that list. Please dont edit with POV. Drop that EU candidate or official statements thing. or None of these countries has a formal statement which says the regime is authorian it is a popular opinon. And being an EU candidate doesnt makes you fully democratic. Please stop removing referenced texts

The main reason behind 2013–14 protests in Turkey is the authoritarianism of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan you can check the references on this article. [3], [4], [5], [6] elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 12:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

In this regard, I don't think you're not neutral, Melih. We cannot evaluate whether Erdogan's authoritarian, by looking at comments from columnists foreign and biased media reports and reviews after the Gezi Park protests. It can not be decided by looking at the his policy after the protests. That a sufficient number of resources, it does not make reliable. Turkey take place between North Korea, China and Cuba as examples of authoritarian regimes, is just injustice and unacceptable. Also you violated clearly WP:3RR in 24 hours period! – Maurice Flesier (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

well mate first Of all biased according to who? cause these media outlets are finest among their collagues. and scondly no matter what, these sources are reliable and i am sure that admins will agree to taht. btw he\she was vandalising the page.

oh yea and also if he wasnt authotorian, why do turkish polls indicate that some people was in The gezi park protests because he was authotarian? kazekagetr 00:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  • A small part of sources which indicates Erdoğan's authoritarianism.--Reality 10:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    • And why do you come here after tweets of Culture and Tourism Minister who is member of AKP? Please don't be troll and read WP:NPOV!--Reality 10:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Melih look at the title: Examples of authoritarian states,this is a topic related to the regime of the countries. Erdogan's personal authoritarianism can not be added to this article and list. Please take a look at the regimes list of countries. Single party regimes: Syria, North Korea, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, China, Azerbaijan. Theocratic states: Iran. Monarchies: Saudia Arabia, Bahrain, Combodia, Coup d'état governments: Egypt, Burkina Faso. Which regime has adopted by Turkey? There are dozens of politians on that list that should be there before Erdogan. Nursultan Nazarbayev, Islam Karimov, Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow, Yoweri Museveni, Emomalii Rahmon, Omar al-Bashir, Idriss Déby and more. This controversial subject connect to just Gezi Park protests is not satisfactory and not enough to keep him here.
Yes, I'm asking you the same question Reality006. Why do you come here after 1 june 2013 seeing the minister's tweet? Erdogan was added this user single-sided and deliberately and I saw it when he made first edit. – Maurice Flesier (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Its not 'just' avout Gezi park protests, theses protests 'support' that he is authoritarian but not just that, there are also these references from 'reliable' sources. All those references comply with wikipedias reliable source policy. You are violating WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT now mate. And like Reality said. You are here after that tweet. Looks lıke you are trying to finish what those IP vandals started. Also i ve updated all references, now 11 refs are valid and all say that Erdoğan is authoritarian. BTW Turkey is just like Azerbaijan dont you think? You can't talk against gov't or high rate of jailed journasilst or low ranking on World Freedom Index or high corruption. kazekagetr 16:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Recep Tayyip Erdogan is mentioned in "Authoritarianism and democracy" section in this context none of the guys above i.e. Nursultan Nazarbayev... fits to this section since unlike Erdogan they do not claim to have an advanced democracy in their countries. There are objective and reliable sources for his authoritarianism emerged within democracy. Also feel free to add any of the other authoritarian leaders to article if you have reliable sources and he fits to the context. Removing Erdogan is nonsense. --Abbatai 06:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually Turkey was never a real Democracy, Turkey before Erdogan was a Semi-Democracy at best, except for the time between 1923-1946, in this period Turkey was an authoritiarian regime, the time between 1946 until 1950, in this period Turkey was a Pseudo-Democracy and also the temporary periods of Military Dictatorships.--Anders Sjolfdjord (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Another wiev: in that part of the article, we refer to " Freedom House's annual Freedom in the World report." In that report, Turkey's ranks are all higher than all of the countries named below. I think we need more than a few opinion news links for that. I suggest we remove Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Turkey from this list, depending on the Freedom in The World Report. 3210king (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

You can remove Russia, Macedonia, Armenia and Venezuela from the list too, this states are illiberal Democracies but not authoritarian regimes.--Gerhardt Rauchfeldt (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

China under Mao Zedong[edit]

The Peoples Republic of China today is in fact an authoritarian state, but China under Mao Zedong was a totalitarian state.--Anders Sjolfdjord (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The Southern States of the USA until the late sixties[edit]

The Southern States of the USA were also Racial Democracies.-- (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Very good point mate but we have to find references kazekagetr 07:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2015[edit]

Add United States Of America under Barack Obama to Authoritarian countries, this is due to Mr. Obama's blatant lies to the people he claimed to serve, and the federalization of the police with their complete disregard to the life of those they swore to protect.

DeadFire999 (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done Please see our neutral point of view policies, as well as our policy for citing sources. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 01:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Far too many images[edit]

There are far too many images on this page, and I have removed some. See WP:GALLERY: "the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject." Here, there is no real encyclopedic value to having 7-8 mugshots of various autocrats in addition to another 4-5 elsewhere in the article; it does not add to the reader's understanding of authoritarianism. A few photos are good, but we don't need a dozen. Neutralitytalk 00:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

well i think that removing others and puuting bashar assad with a large pixel is non-netural unlike your user name. we could remove gallery but the other pictures stay for the illustrative purposes. kazekagetr 00:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Authoritarianism and democracy[edit]

The section "Authoritarianism and democracy" is very unclear.

The beginning of this section says that authoritarianism and democracy are not opposites. Much of there rest of the section, however, compares democratic and non-democratic states, which would only be relevant if the two were opposite. (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Become an editor. You may want to make an explanatory reference to "authoritarianism and democracy?"[1]


  1. ^ Gavrov, Sergei Is the Transition to Authoritarianism Irreversible? // Russian Social Science Review Volume 48, Issue 3, 2007. РР 22-32

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2015[edit]

Monte Negro under Milo Đukanović  (Milo Đukanović, last Balkans autocrat)

Real50 (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. a boat that can float! (happy holidays) 14:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge was a totalitarian state[edit]

Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge was a totalitarian regime.-- (talk) 08:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you pointing this out to suggest that it should not be included as an example of an authoritarian state? —Zujine|talk 05:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Exactly this is my intention.-- (talk) 08:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


Montenegro is an authoritarian state too.-- (talk) 08:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Russia, Macedonia and Armenia are not authoritarian States[edit]

Russia, Macedonia and Armenia are all not more authoritarian than Hungary under Orban, Montenegro under Djukanovic or Turkey under Erdogan. We can entry Russia, Macedonia and Armenia form the list too.--Gregori van Dannebourg (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


Under Gender and authoritarianism, it says

In countries with higher levels of gender equality, men held more authoritarian views.

That can't be right though, or it would be a counterintuitive finding that would need further explanation in the context of that section. I suppose this is an oversight error and it should rather read

In countries with higher levels of gender equality, men held less authoritarian views.

-- (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Done nyuszika7h (talk) 09:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Authoritarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Adding and Removing States from Partial List of Authoritarian Regimes[edit]

I removed Armenia and Hungary from the list of authoritarian states. Armenia is an illiberal democracy rather than a true authoritarian regime;the OSCE holds that the country has had freer elections beginning in 2008 and Freedom House categorizes it as a partly free state (Not Free states are considered authoritarian under Freedom House's guidelines). I'm not sure how Hungary, a democratic member of the European Union, got onto this list - it was likely vandalism and was in no way justifiable. In reducing the number of states on the list I decided to add a couple more: Cameroon, Kazakhstan and Sudan were all put on the list, all being ranked as Not Free by Freedom House and recognized as authoritarian states by Amnesty International. Finally, I added a bit of information to the entry on Thailand which only recently became authoritarian and has a rather interesting form of government at this time. Mentioned that it was currently ruled by a military junta which overthrew the popularly elected government of Yingluck Shinawatra. If anyone has questions please contact me on my talk page! RememberToForget (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Philippines - President Duterte and/or Marcos (at least during the martial law era of his regime) must fall under this category, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Pluralism in totalitarianism?[edit]

I'm utterly surprised and sceptical to read in this article that a defining feature (!) of totalitarianism is pluralism of all things. While there might be or have been totalitarian systems that allowed a degree of pluralism (though I'm very sceptical that there were or are), the assertion that "limited pluralism" does not characterise totalitarianism at all strikes me as extremely dubious; quite unbelievable in fact, and completely at variance with anything I've ever read anywhere else. (The cited source, unfortunately, is behind a paywall.) What kind of "pluralism" should there have been in Nazi Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union? Where pluralism could have been found in Castro's Cuba eludes me as well. At best, the way this is being phrased is massively misleading, uses a completely idiosyncratic definition of "pluralism", or more likely is just bunk that quite possibly results from a complete misinterpretation of the source. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

If what really is meant is what I now suspect is meant (in which case the wording is just very awkward and prone to misunderstanding), I suggest relabeling the row and having it say: Pluralism – No – Limited. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2017[edit]


Could you please add a link to this article:

It would also be interesting to add something based on this article and citizen concerns for the changing dynamics of our country. Our awareness of our own tendencies toward authoritarianism is something important to our future. Awareness of our own tendencies leads to better choices as a country.

Thank you so much for your time! Shannongeis (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Per this Washington Post article[1], which confirms using this cite would be circular sourcing. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball 02:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

US as an authoritarian country?[edit]

Based on certain sources ([7], [8], [9], [10]), the US can be considered an authoritarian state either during the George W. Bush era, or under the current leader. The proposed change is controversial, so I am putting it here for discussion and get a consensus. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 21:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The first source you provide is a 2016 article by Amanda Traub, published in the Vox (website). It is mostly speaking of members of the American public (and voters) who hold authoritarian views on a matter subjects, and which were apparently flocking to Donald Trump as the political candidate who more closely matched their views. While a fascinating article with some decent sources, it speaks more about authoritarian tendencies in the American public than actual policies of the American state. In a minor sample of the article, a political scientist studying authoritarianism is used as a source for the following:

"...a psychological profile of individual voters that is characterized by a desire for order and a fear of outsiders. People who score high in authoritarianism, when they feel threatened, look for strong leaders who promise to take whatever action necessary to protect them from outsiders and prevent the changes they fear." These voters apparently feel threatened by changes in status quo within the United States, by other (outsider) groups gaining prominence or influence, and by perceived external threats to their safety. They are seeking leaders who can maintain the status quo, reverse the changes which they dislike, prevent their rivals from rising to prominence or influence, and deal decisively with any perceived threat on the horizon. Fascinating, but I was quite reminded of the Know Nothing movement of the 1850s and a long-standing presence of Nativism in American politics. Dimadick (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Authoritarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^