AUTOCRACY (rule of one)

Types of Autocracy:

1. Despotism

Despotism (Greek: despotismós) is a form of government in which a single entity rules with
absolute power. Normally, that entity is an individual, the despot, as in an autocracy, but
societies which limit respect and power to specific groups have also been called despotic.
Colloquially, the word despot applies pejoratively to those who use their power and authority
to oppress their populace, subjects, or subordinates. More specifically, the term often applies
to a head of state or government. In this sense, it is similar to the pejorative connotations
that are associated with the terms tyrant and dictator.
The English dictionary defines despotism as "the rule of a despot; the exercise of absolute
authority."
The root despot comes from the Greek word despotes, which means "master" or "one with
power." The term has been used to describe many rulers and governments throughout history. It
connoted the absolute authority and power exercised by the Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt, signified
nobility in Byzantine courts, designated the rulers of Byzantine vassal states, and acted as a title
for Byzantine Emperors. In this and other Greek or Greek influenced contexts, the term was used
as an honorific rather than as a pejorative.
Due to its reflexive connotation throughout history, the word despot cannot be objectively
defined. While despot is closely related to other Greek words like basileus and autokrator, these
connotations have also been used to describe a variety of rulers and governments throughout
history, such as local chieftains, simple rulers, kings, and emperors.
Of all the ancient Greeks, Aristotle was perhaps the most influential promoter of the concept
of oriental despotism. He passed this ideology to his student, Alexander the Great, who
conquered the Achaemenid Empire, which at the time was ruled by the despotic Darius III, the
last king of the Achaemenid dynasty. Aristotle asserted that oriental despotism was not based on
force, but on consent. Hence, fear could not be said to be its motivating force, but rather the
servile nature of those enslaved, which would feed upon the power of the despot master. Within
ancient Greek society, every Greek man was free and capable of holding office; both able to rule
and be ruled. In contrast, among the barbarians, all were slaves by nature. Another difference
Aristotle espoused was based on climates. He observed that the peoples of cold countries,
especially those of Europe, were full of spirit but deficient in skill and intelligence, and that the
peoples of Asia, although endowed with skill and intelligence, were deficient in spirit and hence
were subjected to slavery. Possessing both spirit and intelligence, the Greeks were free to
govern all other peoples.
For the historian Herodotus, it was the way of the Orient to be ruled by autocrats and, even
though Oriental, the character faults of despots were no more pronounced than the ordinary
man's, though given to much greater opportunity for indulgence. The story of Croesus of
Lydia exemplifies this. Leading up to Alexander's expansion into Asia, most Greeks were
repelled by the Oriental notion of a sun-king, and the divine law that Oriental societies accepted.
Herodotus's version of history advocated a society where men became free when they
consented lawfully to the social contract of their respective city-state.

2. Dictatorship

A dictatorship is an authoritarian form of government, characterized by a single leader or

group of leaders and little or no toleration for political pluralism or independent programs or
media
A common aspect that characterized dictatorship is taking advantage of their strong
personality, usually by suppressing freedom of thought and speech of the masses, in order
to maintain complete political and social supremacy and stability. Dictatorships
and totalitarian societies generally employ political propaganda to decrease the influence of
proponents of alternative governing systems.
The word dictator comes from the Latin language word dictator. In Latin use, a dictator was
a judge in the Roman Republic temporarily invested with absolute power.
A dictatorship has been largely defined as a form of government in which absolute power is
concentrated in the hands of a leader (commonly identified as a dictator), a "small clique", or a
"government organization", and it aims to abolish political pluralism and civilian mobilization. On
the other hand, democracy, which is generally compared to the concept of dictatorship, is defined
as a form of government in which power belongs to the population and rulers are elected through
contested elections.
A newer form of government (originating around the early 20th century) commonly linked to the
concept of dictatorship is known as totalitarianism. It is characterized by the presence of a single
political party and more specifically, by a powerful leader (a real role model) who imposes his
personal and political prominence. The two fundamental aspects that contribute to the
maintenance of the power are a steadfast collaboration between the government and the police
force, and a highly developed ideology. The government has "total control of mass
communications and social and economic organizations". According to Hannah Arendt,
totalitarianism is a new and extreme form of dictatorship composed of "atomized, isolated
individuals". In addition, she affirmed that ideology plays a leading role in defining how the entire
society should be organized. According to the political scientist Juan Linz, the distinction between
an authoritarian regime and a totalitarian one is that while an authoritarian regime seeks
suffocate politics and political mobilization, but totalitarianism seeks to control politics and
political mobilization.
However, one of the most recent classification of dictatorships does not identify totalitarianism as
a form of dictatorship. Barbara Geddes's study focuses in how elite-leader and elite-mass
relations influence authoritarian politics. Her typology identifies the key institutions that structure
elite politics in dictatorships (i.e. parties and militaries). The study is based on and directly related
to some factors like the simplicity of the categorizations, cross-national applicability, the
emphasis on elites and leaders, and the incorporation of institutions (parties and militaries) as
central to shaping politics. According to her, a dictatorial government may be classified in five
typologies: military dictatorships, single-party dictatorships, personalist
dictatorships, monarchies, and hybrid dictatorships.

Types of Dictatorship:
1. Military dictatorships
A military dictatorship, also known as a military junta, is a dictatorship in which
the military exerts complete or substantial control over political authority, and the dictator is
often a high-ranked military officer.
The reverse situation is to have a civilian control of the military.
Occasionally military dictatorship is called khakistocracy.The term is a portmanteau
word combining kakistocracy with khaki, the tan-green camouflage colour used in most
modern army uniforms.
Military dictatorships are regimes in which a group of officers holds power, determines who
will lead the country, and exercises influence over policy. High-level elites and a leader are
the members of the military dictatorship. Military dictatorships are characterized by rule by a
professionalized military as an institution. In military regimes, elites are referred to as junta
members, who are typically senior officers (and often other high-level officers) in the
military.
This type of dictatorship was imposed during the 20th century in countries such
as, Chile by Augusto Pinochet, Argentina by Jorge Rafael Videla and other
leaders, Uruguay by Juan Maria Bordaberry, Paraguay by Alfredo Stroessner,
Bolivia by Hugo Banzer, Brazil by Humberto de Alencar Castelo Branco.
 2. Single-party dictatorships

Single-party dictatorships are regimes in which one party dominates politics. In single-party
dictatorships, a single party has access to political posts and control over policy. In single-
party dictatorships, party elites are typically members of the ruling body of the party,
sometimes called the central committee, politburo, or secretariat. Those groups of
individuals control the selection of party officials and "organizes the distribution of benefits to
supporters and mobilizes citizens to vote and show support for party leaders".
Current one-party states include China, Cuba, Eritrea, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam.
3. Personalist dictatorships
Personalist dictatorships are regimes in which all power lies in the hands of a single
individual. Personalist dictatorships differ from other forms of dictatorships in their access to
key political positions, other fruits of office, and depend much more on the discretion of the
personalist dictator. Personalist dictators may be members of the military or leaders of a
political party. However, neither the military nor the party exercises power independently
from the dictator. In personalist dictatorships, the elite corps are usually made up of close
friends or family members of the dictator. These individuals are all typically handpicked to
serve their posts by the dictator.
According to a 2019 study, personalist dictatorships are more repressive than other forms of
dictatorship.

4. Monarchic dictatorships
Monarchic dictatorships are in regimes in which "a person of royal descent has inherited the
position of head of state in accordance with accepted practice or constitution." Regimes are
not considered dictatorships if the monarch's role is largely ceremonial, but absolute
monarchies, such as Saudi Arabia, can be considered hereditary dictatorships. Real political
power must be exercised by the monarch for regimes to be classified as such. Elites in
monarchies are typically members of the royal family.

5. Hybrid dictatorships
Hybrid dictatorships are regimes that blend qualities of personalist, single-party, and military
dictatorships. When regimes share characteristics of all three forms of dictatorships, they are
referred to as triple threats. The most common forms of hybrid dictatorships are
personalist/single-party hybrids and personalist/military hybrids.
 3. Tyranny

The word derives from Latin tyrannus, meaning "illegitimate ruler"

A tyrant is an absolute ruler who is unrestrained by law, or one who has usurped a legitimate
ruler's sovereignty
For the ancient Greeks, a tyrant was not necessarily a bad ruler; in its original form
(tyrannos) the word was used to describe a person who held absolute and personal power
within a state, as distinct from a monarch, whose rule was bound by constitution and law.
Some tyrants were usurpers who came to power by their own efforts; others were elected to
rule; and still others were imposed by intervention from outside. Certain rulers, such
as Phalaris, tyrant of Akragas in Sicily, who allegedly burned his enemies alive in
a brazen bull, were bywords for uncontrolled cruelty and self-indulgence, but others, such as
Pittakos at Mytilene, were remembered favourably in later sources as wise and moderate
rulers who brought prosperity and peace to their cities. Later on in classical history, however,
the word gradually acquired more of its modern flavour, implying a ruler whose sole
motivation was power and personal gain, and as a result its use in public life became
controversial. The idea of tyranny has thus been at the center of debate about legitimacy in
rulership and the balance of power between ruler and people. Since Roman times
philosophers have argued for the moral right of the citizen to overthrow a tyrant whatever the
law and have debated the point at which monarchic rule becomes tyrannical.

The best-known definition of tyranny comes from Aristotle’s Politics: “Any sole ruler, who is
not required to give an account of himself, and who rules over subjects all equal or superior
to himself to suit his own interest and not theirs, can only be exercising a tyranny.” Aristotle
presents tyranny in a very negative light, as a form of monarchy that has deviated from the
ideal, and by listing the characteristics of the tyrant—he comes to power by force, has a
bodyguard of foreigners to protect him, and rules over unwilling subjects—Aristotle suggests
that a tyrant was always a violent usurper. Peisistratus, tyrant of Athens, is a classic
example; he made three attempts to seize power, finally succeeding in a military coup in
546 BCE by using forces from outside, and ruled for 30 years.
ANARCHISM (rule of none)
Objective:

Analyse and explain the importance of governments in societies

Types of Anarchism:

A. Anarchy

Anarchy is the state of a society being freely constituted without authorities or a governing
body. It may also refer to a society or group of people that totally rejects a set hierarchy.
Anarchy comes from the Medieval Latin anarchia and from the Greek anarchos ("having no
ruler"), with an-+ archos ("ruler") literally meaning "without ruler". The circle-A anarchist symbol is
a monogram that consists of the capital letter A surrounded by the capital letter O. The letter A is
derived from the first letter of anarchy or anarchism in most European languages and is the same
in both Latin and Cyrillic scripts. The O stands for order and together they stand for "society
seeks order in anarchy" (French: la société cherche l'ordre dans l'anarchie), a phrase written
by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in his 1840 book What Is Property?
Anarchy is the state of a society being freely constituted without authorities or a governing body.
It may also refer to a society or group of people that entirely rejects a set hierarchy. Anarchy was
first used in 1539, meaning "an absence of government". Pierre-Joseph
Proudhon adopted anarchy and anarchist in his 1840 treatise What Is Property? to refer
to anarchism, a new political philosophy and social movement which advocates stateless
societies based on free and voluntary associations. Anarchists seek a system based on the
abolishment of all unjustified, coercitive hierarchy and the creation of system of direct
democracy and worker cooperatives.
In practical terms, anarchy can refer to the curtailment or abolition of traditional forms
of government and institutions. It can also designate a nation or any inhabited place that has no
system of government or central rule. Anarchy is primarily advocated by individual anarchists
who propose replacing government with voluntary institutions. These true institutions or
associations generally are modeled on nature since they can represent concepts such
as community and economic self-reliance, interdependence, or individualism.
Although anarchy is often negatively used as a synonym of chaos or societal collapse, this is not
the meaning that anarchists attribute to anarchy, a society without hierarchies. Proudhon wrote
that anarchy is "Not the Daughter But the Mother of Order"
 B. Free association

Free association, also known as free association of producers, is a relationship among

individuals where there is no state, social class, hierarchy, or private ownership of means of
production.
The concept of free association becomes more clear around the concept of the proletariat.
The proletarian is someone who has no property nor any means of production and therefore
to survive sells the only thing that they have, namely their abilities (the labour power) to
those owning the means of production. The existence of individuals deprived of property and
livelihood allows owners (or capitalists) to find in the market an object of consumption that
thinks and acts (human abilities), which they use in order to accumulate increasing capital in
exchange for the wage that maintains the survival of the proletarians. The relationship
between proletarians and owners of the means of production is thereby a forced association
in which the proletarian is only free to sell their labor power in order to survive. By selling
their productive capacity in exchange for the wage which ensures survival, the proletarian
puts their practical activity under the will of the buyer (the owner), becoming alienated from
their own actions and products, in a relationship of domination and exploitation. Free
association would be the form of society created if private property were abolished in order
to allow individuals to freely dispose of the means of production, which would bring about an
end to class society, i.e. there would be no more owners neither proletarians, nor state, but
only freely associated individuals. For instance, Karl Marx often called it a "community of
freely associated individuals".
The abolition of private property by a free association of producers is the original goal of the
communists and anarchists and it is identified with anarchy and communism itself. However,
the evolution of various trends have led some to virtually abandon the goal or to put it in the
background in face of other tasks while others believe free association should guide all
challenges to the status quo. Advocates of anarchism and council communism promote free
association as the practical basis for the fundamental transformation of society at all levels,
from the everyday level (such as the search of a libertarian interpersonal relationship,
critique of the family, consumerism, criticism of conformist and obedient behavior) to the
level of world society as a whole (such as the fight against the state and against the ruling
class in all countries, the destruction of national borders, support for self-organized struggle
of the oppressed, attacks on property, support to wildcat strikes and to workers and
unemployed autonomous struggles)
 -
C. Stateless

- stateless society is a society that is not governed by a state, or, especially in

common American English, has no government. In stateless societies, there is
little concentration of authority; most positions of authority that do exist are very limited
in power and are generally not permanently held positions; and social bodies that resolve
disputes through predefined rules tend to be small. Stateless societies are highly variable in
economic organization and cultural practices.
Only states can have nationals, and people of non-state territories may be stateless. This
includes for instance residents of occupied territories where statehood never emerged in the
first place, has ceased to exist and/or is largely unrecognized. Examples include
the Palestinian territories, Western Sahara and Northern Cyprus (depending on the
interpretation of what constitutes statehood and sovereignty). People who are recognized to
be citizens by the government of an unrecognized country may not consider themselves
stateless, but nevertheless may be widely regarded as such especially if other countries
refuse to honor passports issued by an unrecognized state.
While statelessness in some form has existed continuously throughout human history, the
international community has only been concerned with its eradication since the middle of
the 20th century. In 1954, the United Nations adopted the Convention relating to the Status
of Stateless Persons, which provides a framework for the protection of stateless people.
Seven years later, the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Reduction of
Statelessness. In addition, a range of regional and international human rights treaties
guarantee a right to nationality, with special protections for certain groups, including
stateless persons.
States bound by the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child are obligated to ensure that
every child acquires a nationality. The convention requires states to implement this provision
in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless, and in a manner that is in the best
interests of the child.
The status of a person who might be stateless ultimately depends on the viewpoint of the
state with respect to the individual or a group of people. In some cases, the state makes its
view clear and explicit; in others, its viewpoint is harder to discern. In those cases, one may
need to rely on prima facie evidence of the view of the state, which in turn may give rise to a
presumption of statelessness.