The Paradox Of Authoritarianism: Where Are History’s Successful Dictatorships?
Conservatives in America increasingly admire autocracies, but where are the successful ones?
The premise of authoritarian governments is that with more centralized control over the policy-making process, dictators should be able to enjoy greater freedom of action and faster political results than democracies.
Without the constant partisan infighting, competing special interests, reliance on electoral approval via public opinion, or protections of minority rights, autocracies ought to be, in theory, streamlined paragons of governmental success. That’s what wannabe dictators and their brown-nosing bootlickers believe.
Authoritarian regimes can have some relative ideological advantages thanks to the state-sponsored corruption of all aspects of political life they impose on their people — including tight control over the media, loyal police and paramilitary forces, rubber-stamping legislative bodies, and hyper-partisan judicial courts. With such centralized control, authoritarians should be able to act more strategically toward long-term goals and initiatives, enact more coherent and consistent policies, and implement them more efficiently.
