Define and discuss an autocratic system of government - While most essays are likely to be critical of autocracies, discuss as well how it is that this form of government is and has been so prevalent in our world.

        With these strong political aspects being associated with autocracy, it should be noted that coercion and fear play a major role in these regimes to maintain its power. By enforcing limits towards the voice of the people, they not only can better assess their position in power but by doing so without strong conflicts of interests. From such restrictions, wouldn’t that only motivate a society to perhaps create an upheaval towards their current rule of government? By this, an overthrown government would certainly be in the making. But what commends the political strategists of the authoritarian government would be the prevention of such ideologies. Protests and disapproval, in theory, would be negotiated in such a way that their argument of perceptible criticisms would be unnecessary. This is because the leader and the party would ‘rationalize their rule with pseudo-democratic arguments’.  This approach would somehow legitimize their authority consequently maintaining public approval and support for the party. Leaders such as Hitler monopolized this approach simply because it maneuvers the idea of fear and coercion from the public, all the way to other extreme of absolute endorsement for the governments’ policies.

        In contrast to the supreme rule of a single person; we shall see how autocracy compares to its counterpart-democracy. The definition of democracy shouldn’t be taken for granted as its interpretation clearly relies on the application of it. The common theme of democracy involves having effective political power vested in the people. Theoretically, it leaves government decisions to be made according to popular will, or at least according to the supposed values and interests of the population. The benefits of such rule can be seen in many present day Western countries in Europe and North America as they have prospered with maturity in terms of social and economic growth. Although it should be noted that democracy can be interpreted in another way. Even the forefathers of political science, Plato and Aristotle, saw democracy as ‘an exploitative form of government, in the sense that the many used their political power to obtain themselves the wealth of the rich – a majority oppressing a minority.’ To support this claim one would suggest that even from the example of a representative democracy, it is not the people themselves that directly vote on government policies but the elected representatives. The contradiction comes into play when we often find our representatives side with the rest of the majority party, even though that’s not what the public wants.

From this point of view, it is a drastic shift for a rule which would initially seem to be in the common good for all, at the same time possess the qualities of personal sole interests.

        One would often find countries in Africa and Asia to be states that have altered their form of government one after the other. The rise of democracy following the decline of dictatorship, or perhaps vice-versa, would propose that some states do have the tendency to slip in and out their declared form of government. This could be viewed rather ambiguously considering how different the ideologies actually are. Regardless, some states perhaps find it suitable to do so. I would like to take my country, Malaysia, as an example as to why there are different perspectives on the countries’ style of democracy and government. There are varying forms of democracy and one has to be cautious in grouping together all those that do not meet the criteria of democracy as autocratic. Malaysia is a classic example of a developing country that has relatively free democratic elections without fail yet has the stigma of being autocratic. Features such as a tightly controlled media by the government and preventive detention laws present such a case. Repressive laws that come under the national Internal Security Act (ISA) do not promote Malaysia’s brand of democracy. Under this Act, detention without trial and mass arrests are infamous from the global international perspective as these actions have even crossed the boundaries of basic humanitarian rights. In Malaysia’s early steps of rebuilding itself from colonization and brief encounters with communism, the government argued that the purpose of the clause was: “…to prevent anti-social and subversive elements from imperiling the welfare and the security of our country,” and that preventive detention “…was merely to prevent a person from acting in a particular way, and from achieving his objectives. It is not punitive, merely preventive.”  Whilst being cautious of future potentials and prospects, critics have proposed that this preventive approach has been abused for personal political gain and political oppression towards others and that powers such as these have ‘considerably narrowed the scope of democracy’. 

        It is here where Munro-Kua inquires the authoritarian qualities of the Malaysian government and poses the question: “To what extent can the scope of democracy be widened…?” The response to this may begin by acknowledging that with the elements of direct popular elections, a responsible government and freedom of expression and association already present in the country; it is to the growing extent of “which the citizens of the country may be able to participate in this process….that centers on the concept of democracy, both in form and substance,” that we will be able to see improve in the coming years. It is in my opinion that whilst agreeing to some of Munro-Kua’s thoughts and claims on authoritarian populism, I would argue that strong leadership and government is required especially in developing countries such as Malaysia. This is sometimes mistaken for being autocratic, but more so it is why in Asia and Africa that stability and continuity of governments are so important to the person, which subsequently gives reason as to why their ‘autocratic’ leaders are popular. Proven that there are autocratic elements in this government, one may also suggest that too much democracy causes instability and gives rise to other problems which are luxuries that Malaysia cannot afford as of yet, as it desperately needs economic progress and basic amenities.

        In conclusion, the dominance of autocratic governments today and in past history have at least given justice to why it is such a common form of government. The view of dictatorships dishing out bad policies, at least from the point of a democratic value system, Tullock reminds us that, “the normal reason however, is not that they are devoted to those policies on ideological grounds, but that they think that those are the policies that are most likely to permit them to obtain and maintain power.” As to whether this can be seen as a positive or negative step for the ruling state will depend on the scope of where, when and what kind of circumstances does the country find itself in. Moore reiterates this point by stating that “different perspectives on the same set of events should lead to complementary and congruent interpretations, not to contradictory ones.” It is in hope that not only we now better understand the different views of how governments rule their states but as well as a clearer understanding of autocracy and its interpretations.

                                                                Word count:  1,567 words

                                                                     (Excluding bibliography)