Q-13 | Paper 2

Qn 13. Examine the comparative advantage of democracy and autocracy in restraining violence. Do you think that autocratic societies are more prone to political violence? Illustrate your answer with a comparative study of a few societies. (2009/II/Q.4/60m)

Democracy is a political system where majority rules. Autocracy is a political system where one person governs. Political violence is violence used to achieve political goals. Democracies and autocracies have variable relations with political violence.

Etymologically – ‘demos’ (Greek) meaning ‘people’ and ‘kratos’ (Greek) meaning ‘power’ or ‘authority’. Examples - ancient Greece, USA, India, England, France, Italy, Poland etc. Thus, Democracy is a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. Citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body (such as a parliament). Political competition is regarded as the main trait of a democracy. Key elements of democracy, as per Larry Diamond, consist of —

1. Political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections;
2. Active participation of the citizens;
3. Protection of the human rights;
4. Rule of law.

Etymologically Autocracy is — ‘auto’ meaning ‘self’ and ‘kratos’ (Greek) meaning ‘power’ or ‘authority’. Examples - many erstwhile empires, China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Oman, U.A.E. etc. Thus, Autocracy is a system of government where absolute or supreme power is concentrated in the hands of one person, whose decisions are subject to neither external legal restraints nor regularised mechanisms of popular control.

Features —

1. Initially perceived with grandeur and power, with expectation of fostering "lack of conflicts of interests";
2. Strong military;
3. Media control;
4. Faster system
5. Power misuse;
6. leadership is inherited or usurped by force;
7. Resistance manifests as mass revolution, coup d'état, etc.

Its main historical forms are — absolute monarchy and dictatorship. Other aliases are absolutism, monocracy, autarchy; and negative connotations are totalitarianism, despotism, tyranny, kleptocracy, fascism, Nazism, Führerprinzip, dystopia etc.

Political violence is a broad term used to describe violence (hostile or aggressive acts) perpetrated by either persons or governments to achieve political objectives (e.g. affecting desired change in the government or society). Many governments use violence to —

• intimidate the population
• defend against external and internal threats,
• to coerce other governments
• conquer territory.

Types of political violence include:

• violence between non-state actors (e.g. ethnic and regional conflicts);
• one-sided violence by non-state actors (e.g. terrorism, guerrilla warfare, insurgency, extremism);
• one-sided violence by the state (e.g. genocide, ethnic cleansing, torture, capital punishment, police brutality, induced famine, curfew);
• violence between a state and non-state actor (e.g. rebellion, rioting, revolution, civil war, counter-insurgency);
• violence between states (e.g. direct and proxy wars.)

The absence of political violence is envisioned in utopian states, along with complete human fulfilment and eradication of social evils. e.g. More’s ‘Utopia’ island; Platonic philosopher king’s rule; Marxian communist society; Augustine’s ‘City of God’; Campanella’s ‘The City of the Sun’; Bacon’s ‘New Atlantis’; Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’; Orwell’s ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’; socialist doctrines by Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen, Cabet etc.

Democracy’s advantages regarding political violence:

1. Democratic regimes, by allowing political competition and participation diffuse political violence.
2. Democratic institutions provide peaceful channels for resolving political conflict.
3. Democratic government’s legally constrained response to political violence is often seen as more legitimate.
4. Democratic socio-economic development fosters peaceful interactions.

Democracy’s disadvantages regarding political violence:

1. Political violence is most likely where opportunities to organise exist and ineffective institutional channels provide the motivation - as in many democracies. E.g. non-state parties seeking territorial autonomy (e.g. IRA of Northern Ireland, separatists of northeast India); opportunistic actors with narrow objectives (e.g. separatists in Eastern Ukraine). Mostly these are due to centralised polity favouring majority (e.g. conflict in Sri Lanka) and democracies seldom outlawing political groups (exception – illegitimately functioning Baader-Meinhof, Germany).
2. The process of democratisation is often violent. E.g. Britain after Glorious Revolution, France after French Revolution, India after its freedom struggle against colonisation etc.
3. Democracies can be vulnerable to transnational terrorism (e.g. 9/11 attacks in USA, terrorism in India) and mass demonstrations (e.g. anti-austerity protests in Greece, Red Shirt protests in Thailand.
4. Democracies that are victims of political violence may curtail certain freedoms in order to increase security (surveillance state). However, such actions may erode democracy and contribute to greater political violence, due to suppression of opposition.
5. Internal conflict seems more in developing democracies than in high-income ones. e.g. India, Sri Lanka and Colombia versus Europe. It may be fuelled by democratic deficiencies — including corruption, weaker legal systems, ineffective bureaucracies and electoral irregularities.
6. Semi-democracies - when democratically elected get autocratic power – see more violence. e.g. South Africa, Israel, many African nations. These facilitate the use of violence to gain and maintain office.

Autocracy and political violence dynamics:

• Although autocratic repression may be effective in the short-run, it tends to increase discontent in the long-run. e.g. Syria.
• In middle-income authoritarian systems, with educated but unemployed urban youth, conflict over the nature of the political system is dominant.
• Autocracies stifle political violence but fail at grass-root poverty reduction. e.g. China, North Korea, Zimbabwe etc.

Study of political violence in a few autocratic societies:

1. Roman Empire (27 BC): Ruled by emperors. Initially, Rome was peaceful and prosperous, until the dictatorial 160s A.D. Then, 300s A.D. saw invasions as well as economic decline. Eventually, the empire was politically split into two. One half (Western Roman Empire) fell in 476 after civic unrest, further economic decline, and invasions.
2. Aztec Empire: A military powerhouse, in Mesoamerica. The Aztec Emperor was the ruler, military commander and religious figurehead. He drove the Empire's aggressive foreign policy and used to sacrifice captured prisoners-of-war.
3. Mongol Empire: This autocratic monarchy grew under Emperor Genghis Khan, who carrying out widespread invasions and capturing major areas of Asia and Europe. They were notorious for their war atrocities and killings.
4. Tokugawa Shogunate: Medieval Japan was mired in political violence - skirmishes between warring clans and rulers. Tokugawa seized power through tactics and diplomacy. His Shogunate controlled all aspects of life and closed the borders of Japan (policy of isolationism
5. Tsarist and Imperial Russia: Tsar Ivan (‘Ivan the Terrible’) established dominance and expanded his kingdom’s borders. The military enforced his rule. It is said that Ivan established the autocratic nature in Russia that continues today.
6. Soviet Union: Joseph Stalin's rule, as visible during Cold War, precipitated much political violence for maintaining Soviet’s superpower status, e.g. class-based violence, purges, executions, deportations, suppressing civil unrests etc. But later, as Gorbachev’s policies gave vent to simmering civilian angst, the Soviet disintegrated and splintered into Russia and other nations.
7. Russian Federation: Arguably, President Vladimir Putin's prolonged rule is labelled sternly autocratic. His regime is characterised by economic liberalism, a lack of transparency in governance, cronyism, nepotism, pervasive corruption and military-security establishment controlling much of the political and financial power. Many accuse Putin of “dismantlement of democracy and suppression of human rights.”
8. Nazi Germany: With the change of government from a patriarchy (House of Hohenzollern), to a democratic republic, political unrest ensued. With class fluidity, from sudden fall of authority, new political voices emerged. Many rioted. The Nazis, under Adolf Hitler, took advantage of the civil unrest to seize power through propaganda and Hitler’s charismatic speeches. They began to restrict civil liberties. With a combination of cooperation and intimidation, they systematically weakened all opposition, transforming into a fascist dictatorship. Nazis massacred Jews and were aggressive in World War II.
9. China: Earlier, ruled by imperialist dynasties, more recently, by a single communist party. State perpetrates political violence through internet and media censorship; silencing of civil unrest by force (e.g. Tiananmen Square protests); incessant territorial disputes etc. Chinese authorities detest "three evils": terrorism, separatism, and religious fundamentalism, such as conflicts involving Tibetans and Xinjiang Uyghurs. Simultaneously, China has had fast economic growth, a strong military and quick governance.

Comparative study of democracy versus autocracy, w.r.t. political violence shows:

• Democracies provide slow but sustainable peace, while authoritarians provide quick but temporary peace.
• Unlike autocracies, democracies are held accountable - so expected to safeguard citizenry. Hence, have to put more effort to contain political violence, especially terrorism, insurgency, civil wars etc
• Democracies have to act more responsible than autocracies, having to maintain legitimacy. Democracies are expected to protect individual rights and act through the legal system, so have to respond with restrained, calculated and reasonable steps while dealing with politically violent actors
• Oxford professor Paul Collier argues that:
• authoritarianism can be good for growth, especially in homogeneous societies (e.g. South Korea, which democratised under dictators’ policies).
• In ethnically diverse societies, only democracy can work for growth, as autocratic leaders with a narrow support base syphon off national income. That explains why diverse India has democracy-led growth
• Research shows that democratic governments experience more transnational terrorism than other governments.
• Rebel groups fighting democracies in civil wars are known to target civilians more often than those fighting non-democracies.
• Armed conflicts tend to last longer in democracies than in non-democracies, possibly because counter-insurgency efforts are less brutal and hence less effective.
• Well-established democracies experience considerably less political violence than non-democracies. E.g. France or Japan. i.e., lesser domestic terrorism, internal armed conflicts and civil wars. Rare conflicts (e.g. Basque event) have fewer casualties.

Conclusion: The relationship between regime type and political violence is complicated. Both democracies and autocracies are prone to political violence and cope with it in their own ways. Democracies provide slow but sustainable peace, while autocracies provide quick but temporary peace.