The term authoritarianism is used to describe an organization or a state which enforces strong and sometimes oppressive measures against the population. It is distinguished from totalitarianism both by degree and scope, authoritarian administration or governance being less intrusive and in the case of groups not necessarily backed by the use of force. For example, the Roman Catholic Church can be accurately described as authoritarian; however, in modern times it lacks the means to use force to enforce its edicts and is not a totalitarian establishment.

The distinction between authoritarianism and totalitarianism was a crucial part of the Kirkpatrick Doctrine, which asserted that the United States could work with authoritarian nations with bad human rights records because they were more capable of fundamental reform and less dangerous than totalitarian nations.

In an authoritarian state citizens are subject to state authority in many aspects of their lives, including many that other political philosophies would see as matters of personal choice. Authoritarianism generally presumes to know Truth, with a capital "T", and has almost no tolerance of disagreement. It is characterised by moral and philosophical certainty coupled with a taste for the use of force by the State. These systems suppress "heretical" ideas. Totalitarian governments feel that the interests of the State are more important than anything else -- it is the "totality" of all that is worthwhile.

Typically, the leadership (government) of an authoritarian regime is ruled by an elite group that uses repressive means to stay in power. However, unlike totalitarian regimes, there is no desire or ideological justification for the state to control all aspects of a person's life, and the state will generally ignore the actions of an individual unless it is perceived to be directly challenging the state. Totalitarian governments tend to be revolutionary, intent on changing the basic structure of society, while authoritarian ones tend to be conservative.

Economic arguments for authoritarianism

One controversial belief, especially in Asia, is that countries ruled by authoritarianism are more likely to be economically successful than democratic countries. Examples given to support this thesis are South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia and Taiwan, which were authoritarian during their period of growth. This notion of developmental authoritarianism is a central justification for the rule of the Communist Party of China within the People's Republic of China. (The notion that authoritarian government is ultimately superior to democracy was also part of the idea of Asian values, although it diminished somewhat after the Asian financial crisis of 1998.)

One counter-argument is that there are many instances of authoritarian nations that have not encountered rapid growth, for example the Philippines and Indonesia. In addition, critics of the thesis of developmental authoritarianism point out India, which had impressive of social forces that forced a transition to democracy. For example, Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's first Prime Minister, purportedly justified its strict social conduct laws as "a way to force civility onto a third-world country," which it was at the time of its separation from Malaysia.

See also

• police state
• statism
• totalitarianism

lt:Autoritarizmas sv:Auktoritär