|
I had a conversation with a friend who asked me why autocratic countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan tend to be socially conservative. I gave him my answer, but since I am not a political science major, I'd like you guys to critique my hypothesis. When someone says the word "dictatorship", most people think "rule by one man", but really dictatorships are minority rule. In a dictatorship, the leader only requires the support of a narrow sliver of the population in order to stay in power. It's always nice to have more, but he only REQUIRES a small fraction. By contrast, in democracies, a leader needs the support of a much broader section of the population. Democracies are majority rule, dictatorships are minority rule. In general, for a dictator, the best minority to appeal to for support is what psychologists call "right-wing authoritarians". Right-wing authoritarians make up between a fifth and a third of the population, depending on how you count; either way, they're a minority, and they're the easiest minority to secure. Right-wing authoritarians, by definition, are people who are submissive to their leaders and highly conformist. Right-wing authoritarians readily give their unquestioning loyalty to their leader provided that leader appeals to their base values. Look up the literature of Bob Altemeyer if you want to know more. And what is it that right-wing authoritarians fundamentally want? Right-wing authoritarians dislike diversity. They like a society where everybody is the same and interactions with outsiders are minimal. Right-wing authoritarians tend to dislike uncertainty. They also like hierarchy; they like to be the dominant group in society, and they don't much care for egalitarianism. And they tend to be highly fearful of threats caused by people, such as terrorists, criminals, and enemy nations. So a politician can appeal to right-wing authoritarians by opposing immigration, feminism, secularism, and so forth (any that promotes equality and diversity, basically). Once a politician has their loyalty, that loyalty is very secure. Right-wing authoritarians are very forgiving of corruption, brutality, and other forms of misconduct in their leaders, so long as said leaders keep saying the things they want to hear. Whatever proof you offer of their leader's bad deeds, they will deny, downplay or justify them. The old Roman saying was "Caesar can do no wrong". That means that dictators can use foul tactics to oppress the rest of society, the fraction of society that isn't right-wing authoritarian. He can engage in corruption. Right-wing authoritarians will tell you that they hate corruption, but in practice they don't care if it's their guy doing it. He can curb civil liberties, because right-wing authoritarians tend to not appreciate liberty especially when it's not their own liberties. He can use brutality on political opponents; his RWA supporters will either deny it or justify it, especially if he is exerting brutality on groups that they hate. So this is an efficient strategy for politicians in autocratic regimes: appeal to the right-wing authoritarian minority and use oppression on everybody else. It doesn't work so well in a democracy because a democratic politican needs a much broader support base to stay in power and there just aren't enough right-wing authoritarians to build a viable coalition. Remember, RWAs make up only a fifth to a third of society, depending on how you count. A democratic leader thus needs to satisfy the desires of the non-authoritarian members of society; the liberals, in other words. And what do liberals tend to want? They want more liberty. They are less tolerant of cruel behavior. They want more equality. They want more honesty and accountability. They want more tolerance. And a democratic leader must give them that. Giving consideration to liberal demands will, of course, irritate right-wing authoritarian voters, and there is always this struggle in any democracy. Generally, the healthier the democracy, the more influence that liberals have in society. In flawed democracies such as America and Turkey, liberals have more influence than they do in countries like Saudi Arabia but less than in countries like Denmark and Canada. What do you think of my hypothesis?
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2021 16:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 08:27 |
|
|
Grammarchist posted:Yeah, Altmeyer's general thesis seems to hold water in that regard, though there are almost certainly exceptions to the rule. Even "leftist" dictatorships that develop out of either corruption or (often justified) paranoia wind up cultivating a strong base among the more authoritarian-minded individuals in society, especially when they become the only path to power. Altmeyer even gets into the likelihood that many ardent communists in the late Soviet era probably would have been staunch Reaganites and Thatcherites had they been born in the west, and vice versa. Makes sense considering how easily many old communist functionaries in the eastern Europe wound up adopting or adapting nationalist rancor after the fall, though many did hold onto their internalized communist beliefs and simply faded into obscurity as that was no longer a vehicle to authority. The Soviet Union may have been founded on left-wing ideals and hopes of liberalism, but it succumbed to the usual dynamic of small-coalition regimes that Bueno de Mesquita described in his books on selectorate theory. In the beginning, the Soviet Union was somewhat democratic, but then the people started voting in ways that Lenin didn't like, so Lenin scrapped these democratic systems and made himself a dictator. Then Stalin inherited this system and we know how that turned out. Like all dictators, Stalin saw that the most efficient way for him to secure his power was to rally and energize the authoritarians within the population. This is why when you compare Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, there are so many curious parallels, right down to the parades and banners, even though they're supposed to be on opposite sides of the political spectrum. They were both small-coalition regimes, and both Hitler and Stalin secured their power by building a solid base of authoritarian supporters because that's the optimal strategy in a small-coalition system. Non-authoritarians (ie liberals) are harder to please and harder to organize. I've heard some say that it's like herding cats. Meanwhile, a group of right-wing authoritarians is like an army of ants according to Altemeyer (or sheep, if you prefer Orwell). If you're a leader, you'd much rather herd the sheep than attempt to herd the cats, and that's what dictators do. Democratic politicians have no choice but to appeal to the cats as well, and work out a balance between the contradictory tendencies of the sheep and the cats alike.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2021 13:02
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'm not sure any of the above is wrong but the simpler explanation is that change of any kind is a threat to a dictator.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2021 13:21
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Other side of the coin is that dictatorships need someone to beat up on. Just like a playground bully isn't recognized unless he beats up on a victim, if you don't excercise some arbitrary pain and suffering, how does everyone else even know you're a dictator?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2021 14:00
|
|
|
CGPGrey's video is an imperfect summary of selectorate theory, which was developed by the political scientist Bruce Bueno de Mesquita.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2021 16:03
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Grey's videos on politics while often informative, come from the perspective of someone who is very good at science thinking he is also very smart at policy and politics.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2021 11:46
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Saying that Canada is tolerant of minority groups is a pretty spicy take considering they're still finding mass graves outside residential schools. Kurzon fucked around with this message at 13:06 on Jul 5, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2021 13:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 08:27 |
|
|
Thanks, that was educational.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2021 12:47
|
|