Pros And Cons Of Authoritarianism

Authoritarianism can be a favorable system of government because it is more efficient that even parliamentary democracy, and extremely stable when implemented correctly. Unfortunately this is a slippery slope: while the country has stability it needs to retain its stability, and the only way one can do that is by hampering free speech and free press. Once you start hampering free speech, one would want to control more and more of the public’s access to oppositional materials, and this eventually leads to abolishing habeas corpus and other things people take for granted. It is generally not healthy to do this, but it is one of the only ways to keep a stable regime. With that stated, what kind of authoritarian government is best? Personalist would not work unless you have someone in power who would love to partake in a cult of personality. Even if one has that, the system is very unstable. What happens when the leader dies? How would power be transferred? Even then, how many people would be willing to partake in the cult of personality? There would have to be a lot of limiting of free speech and a lot of human rights violations to justify this kind of system, and going straight into it from a democracy is extremely dicey. Military rule also seems like a good idea but is subject to the same faults as
Mihntalo will need to retain the three things which keeps a state a state: legitimate use of force, ability to protect territorial boundaries, and sovereignty. These points can be a little contentious. Will Mihntalo be able to use military force without devolving into torture? Will Mihntalo be able to rule without external or internal forces constraining its rule? It is really all dependent on how much the government is willing to exert force. Too much force and the state will become unjustified in its use of force, and too little will help aid state