World Order: Democratic vs. Authoritarian Governments

This essay provides a comprehensive comparison between democratic and authoritarian forms of government, exploring their historical context and contrasting characteristics. It examines the evolution of world order, from monarchical rule to the rise of democratic ideals following the World Wars. The essay analyzes the features of both government types, including limited political pluralism, the role of emotions, social mobilization, and executive power in authoritarian states, and the power of the people in a democracy. It further investigates the contemporary world order, noting the increasing relevance of human rights and the challenges to democracy, particularly in regions like the Middle East. The essay concludes by emphasizing the importance of democratic governance for ensuring individual rights and freedoms, while acknowledging the complex dynamics of the 21st-century world.

Running head: WORLD ORDER IN THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY
World Order in the Twenty First Century
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1WORLD ORDER IN THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY
In the olden times, the world experienced a form of rule where the Head of the State was
the King or the Queen, usually those who belonged to the so-called ‘royal blood’. This bloodline
was determined by the religious scriptures which were interpreted by the priests and teachers of
religious doctrines (Schedler 2015). As such, power in the ancient times was concentrated in the
hands of a few members of the State and they exercised this power in order to secure the future
of their kingdom. Some of the rulers of the State were benevolent towards their subjects and tried
to cater to their desires and wants, whereas many rulers were authoritative in nature and believed
in the centralization of the power of the State in their hand. This monarchial nature of the State
order gradually started to disintegrate when the world witnessed two devastating wars in the
form of the First World War and the Second World War. The centralization of powers in the
hands of a few members of the society was considered to be disastrous and therefore, it was now
decided that the common people should have a say in the affairs of the State which affects them
(Giroux 2018). This form of State order is known as democratic form of government where it is
the common people who wields the power of the State. This essay seeks to make a comparison
between the democratic form of power structure and the authoritarian form of state order. The
paper further analysis whether the present world order of the twenty first century is democratic
or authoritarian. The paper concludes with the importance of a democratic nature of the State in
the modern world. The purpose of the paper is to make a detailed analysis on the fact that
whether the contemporary world of today is becoming increasingly democratic in nature or
authoritarian in nature.
The authoritarian form of government refers to those government which grants limited
political freedom to its citizens and where the power of the State is concentrated in the hands of
one single individual. The authoritarian State believes that its citizens are subordinates of the

2WORLD ORDER IN THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY
State and hence, their demands and wants and not above the needs of the State (Kirscht and
Dilleha 2015). In such a state structure, the individuals have very limited access to their freedom
and rights. The characteristics of an authoritarian type of state structure was formalized by a
person known as Juan Linz in the year 1964 (Pettigrew 2016). According to him, there are four
important features which helps to distinguish an authoritarian form of government. For instance,
the first characteristic is that of limited political pluralism. This means that in an authoritarian
form of State the powers of the different agencies of the government such as the legislature and
the judiciary is severely restricted and that the entire power is vested in the hand of the ruler. The
second important characteristic is that the legitimate power to rule is based on emotions rather
than logic and reason. This is so because the power of the State has to be effectively utilized to
fight several societal evils such as terrorism and insurgency. Third, there should be limited social
mobilization so that the opponents to the ideal of the State are suppressed and there is minimal
interference from them (Dodge 2017). And lastly, the executive power of the State is not defined
properly as it keeps on shifting depending on who needs it the most during that particular time
period. All these decisions rest in the hands of the dictator. Authoritarian form of government
was seen in the course of the World Wars, for instance, in the cases of Germany and Italy. In
Germany, the dictator was Adolf Hitler and he had serious grievances with the Western Powers
as they had striped Germany of her powers after her defeat in the First World War (Hetherington
and Weiler 2015). Hitler swore to revive Germany to her former glory and embarked on the
journey to cause mayhem. He established an authoritarian form of power structure in Germany
and it had serious adverse consequences for the entire world in the form of the outbreak of the
Second World War.

3WORLD ORDER IN THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY
The democratic nature of government refers to that form of power structure where the
power of the State is distributed amongst the people who belong to that concerned State (Achen
and Bartels 2017). The objective of such a form of power structure is to allow the citizens of the
State to have a say in the affairs of the State. There are two types of democratic government that
is direct democracy and indirect democracy. In a direct democracy, it is the people who
themselves exercise the power of the State directly. They themselves are the representatives of
the State and work for the well-being of the society. They do not exercise the medium of voting
as they are not required to elect anyone (Westbrook 2015). This type of direct democracy is
therefore only possible in a State with minimal population as it would be easier to handle the
affairs of the State in an organized manner. Another type of democracy is the indirect democratic
power structure. In indirect democracy, it is the citizens of the State who exercise the power held
by them through the medium of voting. In other words, the potential representatives of the
government of the concerned State put forth their names in the electoral process and then it
depends on the citizens of the State to vote for that particular representative whom they feel is
the most capable to work for the welfare of the society (Hammar 2017). The representatives with
the most number of votes get elected to serve their country. They exercise the power invested in
them to carry forward the policies and regulations which would promote the well-being of the
people of the State. If they fail to deliver their promises and their work adversely affects the
citizens of the State then it depends on the people to remove the concerned representatives from
the government. Thus, even though the power of the State is exercised by the representatives of
the government, in reality, it is the common people who has all the power vested in their hands
(Habermas 2015). Indirect type of democracy is more suited for big countries with huge

4WORLD ORDER IN THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY
population as the representatives can then represent a portion of the population and be
responsible for their welfare.
After the end of the Second World War, the world community realized that the
concentration of power in the hands of a few people is dangerous, as was clearly evidenced in the
cases of Adolf Hitler of Germany and Mussolini (Meloen 2017). Their whims and grievances
were the main reason for the outbreak of the disastrous Second World War. The world leaders
believed that if instead, the power of the State was distributed amongst the people of the State
then it would have been difficult for Germany and Italy to cause so much chaos. The advisors of
Hitler and Mussolini would have delayed, if not prevented them from taking any rash decisions
and measures (Beck and Plant 2018). This necessitated the need for a democratic framework of
power structure. In a democracy, it is the people who are the real bearers of state power. They
decide what would be the future course of action of the state and what shall be the various
national interest of the State. In a democratic nature of government, the government comprises of
the elected representatives of the people. These elected representatives have their foremost
responsibility and obligation to the people they represent. As a result, they are obligated to take
only those measures which would be conducive to the happiness of the people and their
contentment. This is in stark contrast with the setup of an authoritarian form of government.
After the end of the Second World War, the various states of the world started to realize the
importance of setting up a democratic form of government (Choma and Hanoch 2017). As a
result, the world order started to shift from an authoritarian framework to that of a liberal
democratic nature of government where the sovereignty of a State rests on the people. In the
contemporary world structure of the twenty first century, the need for a democratic world order
is felt with the rising importance of human rights and their freedom. The various agencies of the

5WORLD ORDER IN THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY
world have the ultimate obligation to ensure that the rights of the people are not abridged in any
manner and that the natural freedom granted to them are enjoyed by them in their true sense.
Moreover, there are certain universal human rights which are guaranteed to human beings
irrespective of any discrimination and it is the utmost priority of the State concerned that is to
where they belong, to ensure that the individuals are enjoying their life without facing any
problem (Giroux 2017). The significance of maintaining human rights and to ensure that no
individual is hassled unnecessarily, the responsibility of the States around the world has
increased manifold. All of this points towards the necessity of a democratic nature of state order
as it is only a democracy which can guarantee the rights and freedom of the individuals while
ensuring their sovereignty.
However, observing the present scenario, it is seen that the contemporary world order is
becoming increasingly authoritarian in its nature. After the end of the Cold War and the demise
of the Soviet Union, the United States of America emerged as the sole hegemonic power
(Diamond, Plattner and Walker 2016). All the other States of the world tried to follow the
footsteps of the United States and reorganized their form of government along the lines of
democracy. Unfortunately, this transition was not a smooth one and several sections of many
states of the world resisted the hypocritical imaging of their country in relation with the United
States. These rebel groups considered the United States of America to be the reason for the
discontent in their country. They believe that it is the ulterior motive of the United States to
convert all the States of the world in to a democratic framework as this would help in promoting
the economic values of liberalization and privatization which, in turn, would further boost the
international world market (Tang 2016). As a result, there is a widespread tendency among the
States of the world to become authoritarian in nature. This can be particularly seen in the case of

6WORLD ORDER IN THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY
the region of Middle East. This region of the world is the most conflicted area in the present time
period. The conflict arises mainly because of the nature of their state order. The states of the
Middle East region follow the principles of Sharia while implementing their rule of law and
various other policies of the State. These States believe in the higher power of their Islamic
religious doctrines and does not want to adhere to the democratic ideals as propounded by the
western civilization. As a result, they are becoming increasingly resilient to the efforts by the
United States to transition them to a democratic form of government and this resilience has taken
the form of terrorism. Thus, the emergence of terrorism which is particularly affecting the
contemporary world, can be attributed to a reaction against democracy.
Not only the region of the Middle East, but also the country of North Korea can be
observed for the increasing tendency towards authoritarianism in the present world order (Guriev
and Treisman 2015). The leaders of the country of North Korea have always believed in the
ideals of authoritarianism and dictatorship. The leaders of North Korea thought that if the
citizens of the country are given too much freedom then they, that is the leaders, would lose their
position and power within the country. The maintenance of their power was necessary because of
the threat they faced from the United States and its ally, South Korea (Ahlquist et al. 2015). This
authoritarian nature of North Korea still continues to persist in the modern contemporary world
and thus, the people of North Korea have limited freedom and rights which are granted to them.
The prevalence of authoritarianism in the present world order is something of a paradox.
On one hand the various States of the world are lying stress on the importance of individual
freedom and the need for rule of law (Conway III et al. 2018). On the other hand, the leaders of
the States are increasingly trying to concentrate the power of the State in their hand. This is also
seen in the case of the erstwhile United States who for so long believed in the goodness and

7WORLD ORDER IN THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY
worth of a democratic nature of the society. However, the present President of the United States,
Donald Trump believes in taking unilateral decisions while formulating policies for the State and
its people (Hetherington and Weiler 2015). The fact that he is still in office and wields enormous
power attests to the opinion that it is the people of the United States themselves who want an
authoritative figure as their leader. The biggest threat to the United States, China, also follows
an authoritarian form of government. The Chinese government is unlike any government of the
world. On the outset, it talks about the freedom of the people and their welfare. However, on the
inside, the government of China is anything but democratic. The power of China is concentrated
in the hands of the Premier, who is the Prime Minister of China (Vasilopoulos, Marcus and
Foucault 2018). All the policies are formulated and regulated by him and nothing is outside his
purview or discretion. As such, the important powers of the world, all are becoming increasingly
authoritarian in nature. The country of United Kingdom, however, can be seen adhering to the
doctrines of democracy. Although United Kingdom still follows monarchial rule, the real power
is vested in its people (Armstrong and Bulmer 2018).
In conclusion it is observed that the although the world leaders dreamt of establishing a
world based on democratic ideals after the horrors experienced in the two world wars, the
contemporary world of the twenty first century is increasingly leaning towards the ideals of
authoritarianism. Some of the countries of the world like North Korea and China were never
democratic to begin with and there is little hope for them to transition in to one. The states of the
Middle East region have their own conflicts with religion and hence, their transition to
democracy is not immediate. Moreover, it is in this part of the world that the aspect of terrorism
has arose as a reaction to the imposition of the democratic ideals propositioned by the states of
the western world. The instances of some of the States of the world leaning towards

8WORLD ORDER IN THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY
authoritarianism in spite of being democratic, such as the United States has further provided
evidence of the increasing tendency of the present world order towards authoritarian form of
government. As a result, it is seen that instead of accepting the ideal virtues of democracy, the
dictator-like features of authoritarian are preferred more in the twenty first century. This is the
consequence of the states of the world trying to achieve their own selfish motives of national
interest.

9WORLD ORDER IN THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY
References:
Achen, C.H. and Bartels, L.M., 2017. Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce
responsive government (Vol. 4). Princeton University Press.
Ahlquist, J.S., Ichino, N., Wittenberg, J. and Ziblatt, D., 2015. Slouching towards
Authoritarianism? evidence from survey experiments around the 2014 Hungarian elections.
Armstrong, K.A. and Bulmer, S., 2018. The United Kingdom: between political controversy and
administrative efficiency. In Fifteen into one?. Manchester University Press.
Beck, C.L. and Plant, E.A., 2018. The Implications of Right‐Wing Authoritarianism for Non‐
Muslims’ Aggression toward Muslims in the United States. Analyses of Social Issues and Public
Policy, 18(1), pp.353-377.
Choma, B.L. and Hanoch, Y., 2017. Cognitive ability and authoritarianism: Understanding
support for Trump and Clinton. Personality and Individual Differences, 106, pp.287-291.
Conway III, L.G., Houck, S.C., Gornick, L.J. and Repke, M.A., 2018. Finding the Loch Ness
monster: Left‐wing authoritarianism in the United States. Political Psychology, 39(5), pp.1049-
1067.
Diamond, L., Plattner, M.F. and Walker, C. eds., 2016. Authoritarianism goes global: The
challenge to democracy. JHU Press.
Dodge, T., 2017. Iraq–from war to a new authoritarianism. Routledge.
Giroux, H.A., 2017. The public in peril: Trump and the menace of American authoritarianism.
Routledge.

10WORLD ORDER IN THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY
Giroux, H.A., 2018. Terror of Neoliberalism: Authoritarianism and the Eclipse of Democracy.
Routledge.
Guriev, S. and Treisman, D., 2015. How modern dictators survive: An informational theory of
the new authoritarianism(No. w21136). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Habermas, J., 2015. Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and
democracy. John Wiley & Sons.
Hammar, T., 2017. Democracy and the nation state. Routledge.
Hetherington, M.J. and Weiler, J.D., 2015. Authoritarianism and polarization in American
politics, still?. American gridlock: The sources, character, and impact of polarization, pp.86-
112.
Kirscht, J.P. and Dillehay, R.C., 2015. Dimensions of authoritarianism: A review of research
and theory. University Press of Kentucky.
Meloen, J.D., 2017. A critical analysis of forty years of authoritarianism research: Did theory
testing suffer from Cold War attitudes?. In Nationalism, ethnicity, and identity (pp. 127-166).
Routledge.
Pettigrew, T.F., 2016. In pursuit of three theories: Authoritarianism, relative deprivation, and
intergroup contact. Annual review of psychology, 67, pp.1-21.
Schedler, A., 2015. Electoral authoritarianism. Emerging trends in the social and behavioral
sciences: An interdisciplinary, searchable, and linkable resource, pp.1-16.
Tang, W., 2016. Populist authoritarianism: Chinese political culture and regime sustainability.
Oxford University Press.

11WORLD ORDER IN THE TWENTY FIRST CENTURY
Vasilopoulos, P., Marcus, G.E. and Foucault, M., 2018. Emotional responses to the Charlie
Hebdo attacks: Addressing the authoritarianism puzzle. Political Psychology, 39(3), pp.557-575.
Westbrook, R.B., 2015. John Dewey and american democracy. Cornell University Press.