Dictatorship

Dictatorship is an autocratic form of governance under which the ruling authority is responsible to no one for his or her deeds. The term is used synonymously (although not necessarily accurately) with the terms totalitarianism, tyranny, despotism, and absolutism. Dictatorial regimes have historically been responsible for some of the most malevolent, socially injurious actions ever perpetrated by humankind. This entry highlights some of the characteristics of dictatorships, how they have historically manifested themselves, and the implications for the evolution of human rights.

The term dictatorship refers to an autocratic style of rule or governance. It is distinguished from the term totalitarianism in that the latter term includes reference to the degree of control (namely, over the totality of social existence), which typically includes the means of production and labor. The etymology of the term dictatorship locates its origin in the early Roman constitution, which provided for a temporary office of exceptional power for use in emergencies. When considered in its original Roman context, Juan J. Linz notes that dictatorships cannot be identified until they have disbanded, because the classification of a dictatorship is contingent on its temporary status. A less restrictive definition is provided in the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines a dictator as “a ruler or governor whose word is law; an absolute ruler of a state.” Perhaps the quintessential example of a modern dictator in this context was Adolf Hitler, whose word was given the full force of codified law subsequent to the German Reichstag's passage of the Enabling Act in 1933.

Scholars have recognized that there are varying degrees of dictatorship and usually classify them according to the extent of control they maintain over the daily affairs of their citizenry. Jeanne Kirkpatrick identified one end of the continuum as representing “totalitarian dictatorships,” which are characterized as regimes that are focused on massive intervention in all areas of social and economic life. These are typically motivated by some underlying utopian goal and are exemplified by the dictatorial regimes of the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. At the opposite end of the spectrum of dictatorships are less repressive traditional autocracies. These regimes interfere minimally with conventional social relations, typically doing so only to the extent that it helps ruling elites capitalize on the fruits of their status, often by draining state financial reserves to increase their personal wealth. Consequently, they are sometimes referred to as “tin-pot” regimes. Traditional autocracies are also relatively politically unstable in comparison with more repressive dictatorial regimes, which is unfortunate considering that they have historically been less antagonistic toward nations founded on democratic ideals. Traditional autocracies flourished in the Middle East during the late 20th century, and are exemplified in the dictatorial regimes of Ferdinand Marcos and Manuel Noriega.

Some scholars have noted that the economic motivations underlying political decision making in democratic regimes is qualitatively similar to the decision-making process that occurs under [Page 188]dictatorship. These scholars note that dictators do not repress merely for the sake of repression, but to maintain and increase their political power. All governments provide services, including dictatorships, in the form of protection from potentially hostile regimes as well as funding public works projects (e.g., roadway construction). Ronald Wintrobe found that the type of dictatorial regime affected how it responded to improving economic conditions, whereby traditional autocracies reduced their level of repression whereas totalitarian regimes acted contrarily.

...