3
Modern Nondemocratic Regimes
DEMOCRATIC transition and consolidation involve the movement from a
nondemocratic do a democratic regime . However, specific polities may vary immensely
in the paths available for transition and the unfinished tasks the new democracy
must face before it is consolidated . Our central endeavor in the next two
chapters is to show how and why much-though of course not all-of such variation
can be explained by prior regime type .
For over a quarter of a century the dominant conceptual framework among
analysts interested in classifying the different political systems in the world has
been the tripartite distinction between democratic, authoritarian, and totalitarian
regimes. New paradigms emerge because they help analysts see commonalities
and implications they had previously overlooked . When Juan Linz wrote his
1964 article "An Authoritarian Regime : Spain," he wanted to call attention to the
fact that between what then were seen as the two major stable political poles-the
democratic pole and the totalitarian pole-there existed a form of polity that had
its own internal logic and was a steady regime type . Though this type was nondemocratic,
Linz argued that it was fundamentally different from a totalitarian
regime on four key dimensions-pluralism, ideology, leadership, and mobilization.
This was of course what he termed an authoritarian regime . He defined them
as: "political systems with limited, not responsible, political pluralism, without
elaborate and guiding ideology, but with distinctive mentalities, without extensive
nor intensive political mobilization, except at some points in their development,
and in which a leader or occasionally a small group exercises power within
formally ill-defined limits but actually quite predictable ones ."
In the 196os, as analysts attempted to construct categories with which to compare
and contrast all the systems in the world, the authoritarian category proved
useful. As the new paradigm took hold among comparativists, two somewhat surprising
conclusions emerged. First, it became increasingly apparent that more
regimes were "authoritarian" than were "totalitarian" or "democratic" combined .2
1 . Juan J. Linz, "An Authoritarian Regime: The Case of Spain;" in Erik Allardt and Yrj6 Littunen, eds.,
Cleavages, Ideologies and Party Systems (Helsinki: Transactions of the Westermarck Society, 1964), 291-342Reprinted
in Erik Allardt and Stein Rokkan, eds ., Mass Politics: Studies in Political Sociology (New
Press, 1970),251--83,374--81 . Page citations will refer to the 1970 volume . The definition is found on .,,.
2. See, for example, the data contained in footnotes 4 and 5 in this chapter .
Modern Nondemocratic Regimes 39
Authoritarian regimes were thus the modal category of regime type in the modern
world. Second, authoritarian regimes were not necessarily in transition to a different
type of regime. As Linz's studies of Spain in the 195os and early 196os showed,
the four distinctive dimensions of an authoritarian regime-limited pluralism,
mentality, somewhat constrained leadership, and weak mobilization-could cohere
for a long period as a reinforcing and integrated system that was relatively stable.3
Typologies rise or fall according to their analytic usefulness to researchers . In
our judgment, the existing tripartite regime classification has not only become
less useful to democratic theorists and practitioners than it once was, it has also
become an obstacle. Part of the case for typology change proceeds from the implications
of the empirical universe we need to analyze. Very roughly, if we were
looking at the world of the mid-198os, how many countries could conceivably be
called "democracies" of ten years' duration? And how many countries were very
close to the totalitarian pole for that entire period? Answers have, of course, an inherently
subjective dimension, particularly as regards the evaluation of the evidence
used to classify countries along the different criteria used in the typology .
Fortunately, however, two independently organized studies attempt to measure
most of the countries in the world as to their political rights and civil liberties .4
The criteria used in the studies are explicit, and there is a very high degree of
agreement in the results. If we use these studies and the traditional tripartite
regime type distinction, it turns out that more than 9o percent of modern nondemocratic
regimes would have to share the same typological space-"authoritarian."5
Obviously, with so many heterogeneous countries sharing the same
3. See Juan J. Linz, "From Falange to Movimiento-Organización : The Spanish Single Party and the
Franco Regime, 1936-1968," in Samuel P. Huntington and Clement H . Moore, eds.,Authoritarian Politics in
Modern Society: The Dynamics of Established One-Party Systems (New York : Basic Books, 1970), 128-203Also
see Linz, "Opposition in and under an Authoritarian Regime : The Case of Spain," in Robert A . Dahl,
ed., Regimes and Oppositions (New Haven : Yale University Press, 1973),171-259.
4. One effort was by Michael Coppedge and Wolfgang Reinicke, who attempted to operationalize the
eight "institutional guarantees" that Robert Dahl argued were required for a polyarchy. They assigned values
to 137 countries on a polyarchy scale, based on their assessment of political conditions as of mid-1985 .
The results are available in "A Measure of Polyarchy," paper prepared for the Conference on Measuring Democracy,
Hoover Institution, Stanford University, May 27-28,1988 ; and their "A Scale of Polyarchy," in Raymond
D. Gastil, ed., Freedom in the World: Political Rights and Civil Liberties, 1987-1988 (New York : Freedom
House, 1990),101-28 . Robert A . Dahl's seminal discussion of the "institutional guarantees" needed for
polyarchy is found in Dahl, Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition (New Haven : Yale University Press,
1971), 1-16 .
The other major effort to operationalize a scale of democracy is the annual Freedom House evaluation
of virtually all the countries of the world. The advisory panel has included in recent years such scholars as
Seymour Martin Lipset, Giovanni Sartori, and Lucian W . Pye. The value they assigned on their scale for
each year from 1978-1987 can be found in Gastil, Freedom in the World, 54-65.
5. We arrive at this conclusion in the following fashion . The annual survey coordinated by Raymond D .
Gastil employs a 7-point scale of the political rights and civil liberties dimensions of democracy . With the
help of a panel of scholars, Gastil, from 1978 to 1987, classified annually 167 countries on this scale . For our
purposes if we call the universe of democracies those countries that from 1978 to 1987 never received a score
of lower than 2 on the Gastil scale for political rights and 3 for civil liberty, we come up with 42 countries.
This is very dose to the number of countries that Coppedge and Reinicke classify as "full polyarchies" in
their independent study of the year 1985 . Since our interest is in how countries become democracies we will
40
Theoretical Overview
typological "starting place," this typology of regime type cannot tell us much
about the extremely significant range of variation in possible transition paths and
consolidation tasks that we believe in fact exists . Our purpose in the rest of this
chapter is to reformulate the tripartite paradigm of regime type so as to make it
more helpful in the analysis of transition paths and consolidation tasks. We propose
therefore a revised typology, consisting of "democratic," "authoritarian," "totalitarian,"
"post-totalitarian," and "sultanistic regimes .
DEMOCRACY
To start with the democratic type of regime, there are of course significant
variations within democracy. However, we believe that such important categories
as "consociational democracy" and "majoritarian democracy" are subtypes of democracy
and not different regime types .6 Democracy as a regime type seems to
us to be of sufficient value to be retained and not to need further elaboration at
this point in the book .
TOTALITARIANISM
We also believe that the concept of a totalitarian regime as an ideal type, with
some close historical approximations, has enduring value. If a regime has eliminated
almost all pre-existing political, economic, and social pluralism, has a unified,
articulated, guiding, utopian ideology, has intensive and extensive mobilization,
and has a leadership that rules, often charismatically, with undefined limits
and great unpredictability and vulnerability for elites and nonelites alike, then it
seems to us that it still makes historical and conceptual sense to call this a regime
with strong totalitarian tendencies .
If we accept the continued conceptual utility of the democratic and totalitarian
regime types, the area in which further typological revision is needed concerns
the regimes that are clearly neither democratic nor totalitarian . By the early
exclude those 42 countries from our universe of analysis . This would leave us with 125 countries in the universe
we want to explore .
If we then decide to call long-standing "totalitarian" regimes those regimes that received the lowest possible
score on political rights and civil liberties on the Gastil scale for each year in the 1978-1987 period, we
would have a total of nine countries that fall into the totalitarian classification . Thus, if one used the traditional
typology, the Gastil scale would imply that 116 of125 countries, or 92 .8 percent of the universe under
analysis, would have to be placed in the same typological space . See Gastil, Freedom in the World, 54-65-
6 . For discussions of variations within democracy, see Arendt Lijphart, Democracies : Patterns of Majoritarian
and Consensus Government in Twenty-one Countries (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984),
esp. 1-36; Philippe C. Schmitter and Terry Lynn Karl, "What Democracy Is . . . and Is Not," Journal of Democracy
2, no. 2 (Summer 1991) : 75-88; and Juan J. Linz, "Change and Continuity in the Nature of Contemporary
Democracies," in Gary Marks and Larry Diamond, eds ., Reexamining Democracy (Newbury
Park, N.J.: Sage Publications, 1992),182-207 .
Modern Nondemocratic Regimes 41
198os, the number of countries that were clearly totalitarian or were attempting
to create such regimes had in fact been declining for some time . As many Soviettype
regimes began to change after Stalin's death in 1953, they no longer conformed
to the totalitarian model, as research showed . This change created conceptual
confusion. Some scholars argued that the totalitarian category itself was
wrong. Others wanted to call post-Stalinist regimes authoritarian . Neither of
these approaches seems to us fully satisfactory . Empirically, of course, most of the
Soviet-type systems in the 198os were not totalitarian. However, the "Soviet type"
regimes, with the exception of Poland (see chap . 12), could not be understood in
their distinctiveness by including them in the category of an authoritarian regime .
The literature on Soviet-type regimes correctly drew attention to regime characteristics
that were no longer totalitarian and opened up promising new studies
of policy-making. One of these perspectives was "institutional pluralism:'7 However,
in our judgment, to call these post-Stalinist polities pluralistic missed some
extremely important features that could hardly be called pluralistic . Pluralist
democratic theory, especially the "group theory" variant explored by such writers
as Arthur Bentley and David Truman, starts with individuals in civil society who
enter into numerous freely formed interest groups that are relatively autonomous
and often criss-crossing. The many groups in civil society attempt to aggregate
their interests and compete against each other in political society to influence
state policies. However, the "institutional pluralism" that some writers discerned
in the Soviet Union was radically different, in that almost all the pluralistic conflict
occurred in regime-created organizations within the party-state itself. Conceptually,
therefore, this form of competition and conflict is actually closer to
what political theorists call bureaucratic politics than it is to pluralistic politics.8
Rather than forcing these Soviet-type regimes into the existing typology of totalitarian,
authoritarian, and democratic regimes, we believe we should expand
that typology by explicating a distinctive regime type that we will call post-totalitarian.9
Methodologically, we believe this category is justified because on each of
the four dimensions of regime type-pluralism, ideology, leadership, and mobi-
7. The strongest advocate of an institutional pluralist perspective for the analysis of Soviet politics was
Jerry F. Hough, especially in his The Soviet Union and Social Science Theory (Cambridge, Mass .: Harvard
University Press, 1977).
8 . The pioneering critique of the institutional pluralist approach to Soviet politics is Archie Brown,
"Pluralism, Power and the Soviet Political System : A Comparative Perspective," in Susan Gross Solomon,
ed., Pluralism in the Soviet Union (London : Macmillan, 1983), 61-107. A useful review of the literature, with
attention to authors such as Gordon Skilling, Archie Brown, and Jerry Hough, is found in Gabriel Almond
(with Laura Roselle), "Model-Fitting in Communism Studies," in his A Discipline Divided: Schools and Sects
in Political Science (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1990),157-72 .
9 . Juan Linz, in his "Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes," in Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W.
Polsby, eds., Handbook of Political Science (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.,1975), 3175 -411,
analyzed what he called "post-totalitarian authoritarian regimes," see 336-5o . Here, with our focus on the
available paths to democratic transition and the tasks of democratic consolidation, it seems to both of us
that it is more useful to treat post-totalitarian regimes not as a subtype of authoritarianism, but as an ideal
type in its own right.
42 Theoretical Overview
lization-there can be a post-totalitarian ideal type that is different from a totalitarian,
authoritarian, or democratic ideal type . Later in this chapter we will also rearticulate
the argument for considering sultanism as a separate ideal-type regime. to
To state our argument in bold terms, we first present a schematic presentation
of how the five ideal-type regimes we propose-democratic, totalitarian, posttotalitarian,
authoritarian, and sultanistic-differ from each other on each one of
the four constituent characteristics of regime type (table 3.1). In the following
chapter we make explicit what we believe are the implications of each regime type
for democratic transition paths and the tasks of democratic consolidation .
POST-TOTALITARIANISM
Our task here is to explore how, on each of the four dimensions of regime type,
post-totalitarianism is different from totalitarianism, as well as different from authoritarianism.I
I Where appropriate we will also call attention to some undertheorized
characteristics of both totalitarian and post-totalitarian regimes that
produce dynamic pressures for out-of-type change. We do not subscribe to the
view that either type is static .
Post-totalitarianism, as table 3.1 implies, can encompass a continuum varying
from "early post-totalitarianism," to "frozen post-totalitarianism," to "mature posttotalitarianism."
Early post-totalitarianism is very close to the totalitarian ideal
type but differs from it on at least one key dimension, normally some constraints
on the leader. There can be frozen post-totalitarianism in which, despite the persistent
tolerance of some civil society critics of the regime, almost all the other
control mechanisms of the party-state stay in place for a long period and do not
evolve (e.g., Czechoslovakia, from 1977 to 1989) . Or there can be mature posttotalitarianism
in which there has been significant change in all the dimensions
of the post-totalitarian regime except that politically the leading role of the official
party is still sacrosanct (e.g., Hungary from 1982 to 1988, which eventually
evolved by late 1988 very close to an out-of-type change).
Concerning pluralism, the defining characteristic of totalitarianism is that
there is no political, economic, or social pluralism in the polity and that pre-
10 . For Juan Linz's first discussion of sultanism, see ibid, 259-63 . For a more complete discussion of sultanism,
see H. E. Chehabi and Juan J. Linz, "sultanistic Regimes," paper prepared for a conference on
sultanistic regimes at Harvard University in November í99o. The results of the conference, which included
papers on such countries as Iran, the Philippines, the Dominican Republic, and Romania, will be published
in a volume edited by H. E. Chehabi and Juan J. Linz.
11 . We believe that readers can readily see for themselves how post-totalitarian regimes are not democratic
regimes, so we will not discuss this point separately . We want to make clear that for our analytic purposes
in this book that the term post-totalitarian refers to a type of nondemocratic regime before the transition
to democracy. In this chapter our main concern is with ideal types . However, in chapter 15,
"Post-Communism's Prehistories," we provide ample empirical evidence of what a totalitarian or posttotalitarian
(in contrast to an authoritarian) legacy means for each of the five arenas necessary for a consolidated
democracy that we analyzed in table 1.1 in this book.
Modern Nondemocratic Regimes 43
existing sources of pluralism have been uprooted or systematically repressed . In
an authoritarian regime there is some limited political pluralism and often quite
extensive economic and social pluralism. In an authoritarian regime, many of the
manifestations of the limited political pluralism and the more extensive social
and economic pluralism predate the authoritarian regime. How does pluralism in
post-totalitarian regimes contrast with the near absence of pluralism in totalitarian
regimes and the limited pluralism of authoritarian regimes?
In mature post-totalitarianism, there is a much more important and complex
play of institutional pluralism within the state than in totalitarianism . Also, in
contrast to totalitarianism, post-totalitarianism normally has a much more significant
degree of social pluralism, and in mature post-totalitarian there is often
discussion of a "second culture" or a "parallel culture." Evidence of this is found in
such things as a robust underground samizdat literature with multi-issue journals
of the sort not possible under totalitarianism.12 This growing pluralism is simultaneously
a dynamic source of vulnerability for the post-totalitarian regime and
a dynamic source of strength for an emerging democratic opposition. For example,
this "second culture" can be sufficiently powerful that, even though leaders of
the second culture will frequently be imprisoned, in a mature post-totalitarian
regime opposition leaders can generate substantial followings and create enduring
oppositional organizations in civil society. At moments of crisis, therefore,
a mature post-totalitarian regime can have a cadre of a democratic opposition
based in civil society with much greater potential to form a democratic political
opposition than would be available in a totalitarian regime . A mature post-totalitarian
regime can also feature the coexistence of a state-planned economy with
extensive partial market experiments in the state sector that can generate a "red
bourgeoisie" of state sector managers and a growing but subordinate private sector,
especially in agriculture, commerce and services .
However, in a post-totalitarian regime this social and economic pluralism is
different in degree and kind from that found in an authoritarian regime . It is different
in degree because there is normally more social and economic pluralism in
an authoritarian regime (in particular there is normally a more autonomous private
sector, somewhat greater religious freedom, and a greater amount of aboveground
cultural production) . The difference in kind is typologically even more
important. In a post-totalitarian society, the historical reference both for the
power holders of the regime and the opposition is the previous totalitarian
regime. By definition, the existence of a previous totalitarian regime means that
most of the pre-existing sources of responsible and organized pluralism have
been eliminated or repressed and a totalitarian order has been established . There
is therefore an active effort at "detotalitarianization" on the part of oppositional
12. For example, in mature post-totalitarian Hungary the most influential samizdatpublication, Beszéld,
from 1982 to 1989, was issued as a quarterly with publication runs of 20,000. Information supplied to Alfred
Stepan by the publisher and editorial board member, Miklós Haraszti, Budapest, August 1994 .
Table 3 .1 . Major Modern Regime Ideal Types and Their Defining Characteristics
Characteristic
	
Democracy
Pluralism
	
Responsible political
pluralism reinforced by
extensive areas of
pluralist autonomy in
economy, society, and
internal life of
organizations . Legally
protected pluralism
consistent with "societal
corporatism" but not
"state corporatism ."
Ideology
	
Extensive intellectual
commitment to
citizenship and procedural
rules of contestation .
Not teleological . Respect
for rights of minorities,
state of law, and value
of individualism .
Table 3 .1 . (continued)
Characteristic
	
Democracy
Mobilization
	
Participation via
autonomously generated
organization of civil
society and competing
parties of political society
guaranteed by a system
of law. Value is on low
regime mobilization but
high citizen participation .
Diffuse effort by regime
to induce good
citizenship and
patriotism . Toleration of
peaceful and orderly
opposition .
Leadership
	
Top leadership produced
by free elections and
must be exercised within
constitutional limits and
state of law . Leadership
must be periodically
subjected to and
produced by free
elections .
Authoritarianism
Political system with
limited, not responsible
political pluralism . Often
quite extensive social
and economic pluralism .
In authoritarian regimes
most of pluralism had
roots in society before
the establishment of the
regime . Often some
space for semiopposition .
Political system without
elaborate and guiding
ideology but with
distinctive mentalities.
Authoritarianism
Political system without
extensive or intensive
political mobilization
except at some points in
their development .
Political system in which
a leader or occasionally a
small group exercises
power within formally illdefined
but actually quite
predictable norms . Effort
at cooptation of old elite
groups . Some autonomy
in state careers and in
military.
Totalitarianism
No significant economic,
social, or political
pluralism . Official party
has de jure and de facto
monopoly of power. Party
has eliminated almost all
pretotalitarian pluralism .
No space for second
economy or parallel
society .
Elaborate and guiding
ideology that articulates
a reachable utopia.
Leaders, individuals, and
groups derive most of
their sense of mission,
legitimation, and often
specific policies from
their commitment to
some holistic conception
of humanity and society .
Totalitarianism
Extensive mobilization
into a vast array of
regime-created obligatory
organizations . Emphasis
on activism of cadres and
militants . Effort at
mobilization of
enthusiasm . Private life is
decried .
Totalitarian leadership
rules with undefined
limits and great unpredictability
for members
and nonmembers . Often
charismatic . Recruitment
to top leadership highly
dependent on success
and commitment in party
organization .
Post-totalitarianism
Limited, but not responsible
social, economic, and
institutional pluralism . Almost
no political pluralism because
parry still formally has
monopoly of power. May have
"second economy," but state
still the overwhelming
presence . Most manifestations
of pluralism in "flattened
polity" grew out of tolerated
state structures or dissident
groups consciously formed in
opposition to totalitarian
regime . In mature posttotalitarianism
opposition often
creates "second culture" or
"parallel society."
Guiding ideology still officially
exists and is part of the social
reality. But weakened
commitment to or faith in
utopia . Shift of emphasis from
ideology to programmatic
consensus that presumably is
based on rational decisionmaking
and limited debate
without too much reference to
ideology .
Post-totalitarianism
Progressive loss of interest by
leaders and nonleaders involved
in organizing mobilization .
Routine mobilization of
population within statesponsored
organizations to
achieve a minimum degree of
conformity and compliance .
Many "cadres" and "militants"
are mere careerists and
opportunists . Boredom,
withdrawal, and ultimately
privatization of population's
values become an accepted
fact.
Growing emphasis by posttotalitarian
political elite on
personal security. Checks on top
leadership via party structures,
procedures, and "internal
democracy." Top leaders are
seldom charismatic . Recruitment
to top leadership restricted to
official parry but less dependent
upon building a career within
parry's organization . Top leaders
can come from party
technocrats in state apparatus .
Sultanism
Economic and social pluralism
does not disappear but is
subject to unpredictable and
despotic intervention . No group
or individual in civil society,
political society, or the state is
free from sultan's exercise of
despotic power. No rule of law .
Low institutionalization . High
fusion of private and public .
Highly arbitrary manipulation of
symbols . Extreme glorification
of ruler. No elaborate or guiding
ideology or even distinctive
mentalities outside of despotic
personalism . No attempt to
justify major initiatives on the
basis of ideology. Pseudoideology
not believed by staff,
subjects, or outside world .
Sultanism
Low but occasional
manipulative mobilization of a
ceremonial type by coercive or
clientelistic methods without
permanent organization .
Periodic mobilization of
parastate groups who use
violence against groups
targeted by sultan .
Highly personalistic and
arbitrary. No rational-legal
constraints . Strong dynastic
tendency. No autonomy in state
careers . Leader unencumbered
by ideology. Compliance to
leaders based on intense fear
and personal rewards . Staff of
leader drawn from members of
his family, friends, business
associates, or men directly
involved in use of violence to
sustain the regime. Staff's
position derives from their
purely personal submission to
the ruler.
46 Theoretical Overview
currents in civil society. Much of the emotional and organizational drive of the
opposition in civil society is thus consciously crafted to forge alternatives to the
political, economic, and social structures created by the totalitarian regime, structures
that still play a major role in the post-totalitarian society . Much of the second
culture therefore is not traditional in form but is found in new movements
that arise out of the totalitarian experience . There can also be a state-led detotalitarianization
in which the regime itself begins to eliminate some of the most extreme
features of the monist experience. Thus, if there is growing "institutional
pluralism," or a growing respect for procedure and law, or a newly tolerated private
sector, it should be understood as a kind of pluralism that emerges out ofthe
previous totalitarian regime .
However, it is typologically and politically important to stress that there are
significant limits to pluralism in post-totalitarian societies . In contrast to an authoritarian
regime, there is no limited and relatively autonomous pluralism in the
explicitly political realm . The official party in all post-totalitarian regimes is still
legally accorded the leading role in the polity . The institutional pluralism of a
post-totalitarian regime should not be confused with political pluralism ; rather,
institutional pluralism is exercised within the party-state or within the newly tolerated
second economy or parallel culture. The pluralism of the parallel culture
or the second culture should be seen as a social pluralism that may have political
implications. But we must insist that the party and the regime leaders in posttotalitarian
regimes, unless they experience out-of-type change, accord no legitimacy
or responsibility to nonofficial political pluralism . 13 Even the formal pluralism
of satellite parties becomes politically relevant only in the final stages of the
regime after the transition is in progress .
When we turn to the dimension of leadership, we also see central tendencies
that distinguish totalitarian from authoritarian leadership . Totalitarian leadership
is unconstrained by laws and procedures and is often charismatic . The
leadership can come from the revolutionary party or movement, but members
of this core are as vulnerable to the sharp policy and ideological changes enunciated
by the leader (even more so in, terms of the possibility of losing their
lives) as the rest of the population.14 By contrast, in the Linzian scheme, authoritarian
leadership is characterized by a political system in which a leader or
occasionally a small group exercises power within formally ill-defined but actually
quite predictable norms . There are often extensive efforts to co-opt old
elite groups into leadership roles, and there is some autonomy in state careers
and in the military.
13 . Hungary in 1988-89 represents a mature post-totalitarian regime which, by engaging in extensive
detotalitarianization and by increasingly recognizing the legitimacy of other parties, had experienced significant
out-of-type changes even before the Communist Party lost power. See chapter 17.
14. For example, under Stalin, of the nine members of the Politburo in 1930, five had disappeared or
been shot by 1937. See George K. Schueller, The Politburo (Stanford : Stanford University Press, 1951),5-6 .
Modern Nondemocratic Regimes 47
As in a totalitarian regime, post-totalitarian leadership is still exclusively restricted
to the revolutionary party or movement . However, in contrast to a totalitarian
regime, post-totalitarian leaders tend to be more bureaucratic and state
technocratic than charismatic . The central core of a post-totalitarian regime normally
strives successfully to enhance its security and lessen its fear by reducing the
range of arbitrary discretion allowed to the top leadership .
In contrast to those who say that the totalitarian regime concept is static, we
believe that, when an opportunity presents itself (such as the death of the maximum
leader), the top elite's desire to reduce the future leader's absolute discretion
is predictably a dynamic source of pressure for out-of-type regime change from
totalitarianism to post-totalitarianism. The post-totalitarian leadership is thus
typologically closer in this respect to authoritarian leadership, in that the leader
rules within unspecified but in reality reasonably predictable limits . However, the
leadership in these two regime types still differs fundamentally . Post-totalitarian
leadership is exclusively recruited from party members who develop their careers
in the party organization itself, the bureaucracy, or the technocratic apparatus of
the state. They all are thus recruited from the structures created by the regime . In
sharp contrast, in most authoritarian regimes, the norm is for the regime to co-opt
much of the leadership from groups that have some power, presence, and legitimacy
that does not derive directly from the regime itself . Indeed, the authoritarian
regime has often been captured by powerful fragments of the pre-existing society.
In some authoritarian regimes, even access to top positions can be established not
by political loyalties as much as by some degree of professional and technical expertise
and some degree of competition through examinations that are open to
the society as a whole. In mature post-totalitarian regimes, technical competence
becomes increasingly important, but we should remember that the original access
to professional training was controlled by political criteria . Also, the competences
that are accepted or recognized in post-totalitarian systems are technical or managerial
but do not include skills developed in a broader range of fields such as the
law, religious organizations, or independent business or labor .
The limited party-bureaucratic-technocratic pluralism under post-totalitarianism
does not give the regime the flexibility for change within the regime that
co-optation of nonregime elites can give to many authoritarian regimes . The desire
to resist the personalized leadership of the First Secretary-ideologue can be a
source of change from totalitarian to post-totalitarian, but it can also lead eventually
to the oligarchic leadership of aging men supported by the nomenklatura.
Attempts at rejuvenation at the top by including or co-opting new men and
women from the outside are normally very limited . In extreme cases (i.e., the
GDR and post-1968 Czechoslovakia), frozen post-totalitarianism shows geriatric
tendencies. Under crisis circumstances, the inability to renovate leadership, not so
paradoxically, is a potential source of dynamic change in that a frozen post-totalitarian
regime, with its old and narrow leadership base, has a very limited capac-
48 Theoretical Overview
ity to negotiate. Such a leadership structure, if it is not able to repress opponents
in a crisis, is particularly vulnerable to collapse. One of the reasons why midlevel
cadres in the once all-powerful coercive apparatus might, in time of crisis, let the
regime collapse rather than fire upon the democratic opposition has to do with
the role of ideology in post-totalitarianism.
The contrast between the role of ideology in a totalitarian system and in a posttotalitarian
system is sharp, but it is more one of behavior and belief than one of
official canon. In the area of ideology, the dynamic potential for change from a totalitarian
to a post-totalitarian regime, both on the part of the cadres and on the
part of the society, is the growing empirical disjunction between official ideological
claims and reality. This disjunction produces lessened ideological commitment
on the part of the cadres and growing criticism of the regime by groups in
civil society. In fact, many of the new critics in civil society emerge out of the
ranks of former true believers, who argue that the regime does not-or, worse,
cannot-advance its own goals . The pressures created by this tension between
doctrine and reality often contributes to an out-of-type shift from a totalitarian
regime effort to mobilize enthusiasm to a post-totalitarian effort to maintain acquiescence.
In the post-totalitarian phase, the elaborate and guiding ideology created
under the totalitarian regime still exists as the official state canon, but among
many leaders there is a weakened commitment to and faith in utopia . Among
much of the population, the official canon is seen as an obligatory ritual, and
among groups in the "parallel society" or "second culture," there is constant reference
to the first culture as a "living lie ." 15 This is another source of weakness, of
the "hollowing out" of the post-totalitarian regime's apparent strength .
The role of ideology in a post-totalitarian regime is thus diminished from its
role under totalitarianism, but it is still quite different from the role of ideology
in an authoritarian regime . Most authoritarian regimes have diffuse nondemocratic
mentalities, but they do not have highly articulated ideologies concerning
the leading role of the party, interest groups, religion, and many other aspects of
civil society, political society, the economy, and the state that still exist in a
regime we would call post-totalitarian . Therefore, a fundamental contrast between
a post-totalitarian and authoritarian regime is that in a post-totalitarian
regime there is an important ideological legacy that cannot be ignored and that
cannot be questioned officially. The state-sanctioned ideology has a social presence
in the organizational life of the post-totalitarian polity. Whether it expresses
itself in the extensive array of state-sponsored organizations or in the domain of
incipient but still officially controlled organizations, ideology is part of the social
reality of a post-totalitarian regime to a greater degree than in most authoritarian
regimes .
15 . Extensive discussions and references about "parallel society," "second culture," and the "living lie" are
found in our chapter on post-totalitarianism in Hungary and Czechoslovakia (chap . 17) .
Modern Nondemocratic Regimes 49
The relative de-ideologization of post-totalitarian regimes and the weakening
of the belief in utopia as a foundation of legitimacy mean that, as in many authoritarian
regimes, there is a growing effort in a post-totalitarian polity to legitimate
the regime on the basis of performance criteria . The gap between the original
utopian elements of the ideology and the increasing legitimation efforts on
the basis of efficacy, particularly when the latter fails, is one of the sources of
weakness in post-totalitarian regimes . Since democracies base their claim to obedience
on the procedural foundations of democratic citizenship, as well as performance,
they have a layer of insulation against weak performance not available
to most post-totalitarian or authoritarian regimes. The weakening of utopian ideology
that is a characteristic of post-totalitarianism thus opens up a new dynamic
of regime vulnerabilities-or, from the perspective of democratic transition, new
opportunities-that can be exploited by the democratic opposition . For example,
the discrepancy between the constant reiteration of the importance of ideology
and the ideology's growing irrelevance to policymaking or, worse, its transparent
contradiction with social reality contribute to undermining the commitment and
faith of the middle and lower cadres in the regime. Such a situation can help contribute
to the rapid collapse of the regime if midlevel functionaries of the coercive
apparatus have grave doubts about their right to shoot citizens who are protesting
against the regime and its ideology, as we shall see when we discuss events in
1989 in East Germany and Czechoslovakia .16
The final typological difference we need to explore concerns mobilization.
Most authoritarian regimes never develop complex, all-inclusive networks of association
whose purpose is the mobilization of the population . They may have
brief periods of intensive mobilization, but these are normally less intensive than
in a totalitarian regime and less extensive than in a post-totalitarian regime . In totalitarian
regimes, however, there is extensive and intensive mobilization of society
into a vast array of regime-created organizations and activities . Because
utopian goals are intrinsic to the regime, there is a great effort to mobilize enthusiasm
to activate cadres, and most leaders emerge out of these cadres . In the totalitarian
system, "privatized" bourgeois individuals at home with their family
and friends and enjoying life in the small circle of their own choosing are decried .
In post-totalitarian regimes, the extensive array of institutions of regimecreated
mobilization vehicles still dominate associational life . However, they have
lost their intensity. Membership is still generalized and obligatory but tends to
generate more boredom than enthusiasm . State-technocratic employment is an
alternative to cadre activism as a successful career path, as long as there is "correct"
participation in official organizations. Instead of the mobilization of enthu-
16 . Daniel V Friedheim is conducting major research on the question of collapse in such frozen posttotalitarian
regimes . See Friedheim, "Regime Collapse in the Peaceful East German Revolution : The Role
of Middle-Level Officials," German Politics (April 1993): 97-112, and his forthcoming Yale University doctoral
dissertation in which he discusses East Germany .
50
Theoretical Overview
siasm that can be so functional in a totalitarian regime, the networks of ritualized
mobilization in a post-totalitarian regime can produce a "cost" of time away from
technocratic tasks for professionals and a cost of boredom and flight into private
life by many other people. When there is no structural crisis and especially when
there is no perception of an available alternative, such privatization is not necessarily
a problem for a post-totalitarian regime. Thus, Kadar's famous saying,
"Those who are not against us are for us," is a saying that is conceivable only in a
post-totalitarian regime, not in a totalitarian one . However, if the performance of
a post-totalitarian as opposed to a totalitarian regime is so poor that the personal
rewards of private life are eroded, then privatization and apathy may contribute
to a new dynamic-especially if alternatives are seen as possible-of crises of
"exit," "voice," and "loyalty."17
Let us conclude our discussion of post-totalitarianism with a summary of its
political and ideological weaknesses. We do this to help enrich the discussion of
why these regimes collapsed so rapidly once they entered into prolonged stagnation
and the USSR withdrew its extensive coercive support . Indeed in chapter 17,
"Varieties of Post-totalitarian Regimes," we develop a theoretical and empirical
argument about why frozen post-totalitarian regimes are more vulnerable to collapse
than are authoritarian or totalitarian regimes .
Totalitarianism, democracy, and even many authoritarian regimes begin with
"genetic" legitimacy among their core supporters, given the historical circumstances
that led to the establishment of these regimes. By contrast, post-totalitarianism
regimes do not have such a founding genetic legitimacy because they emerge
out of the routinization, decay, or elite fears of the totalitarian regime . Post-totalitarian
regimes, because of coercive resources they inherit and the related weaknesses
of organized opposition, can give the appearance of as much or more stability
than authoritarian regimes ; if external support is withdrawn, however, their
inner loss of purpose and commitment make them vulnerable to collapse .
Post-totalitarian politics was a result in part of the moving away from Stalinism,
but also of social changes in Communist societies . Post-totalitarian regimes
did away with the worst aspects of repression but at the same time maintained
most mechanisms of control. Although less bloody than under Stalinism, the
presence of security services-like the Stasi in the GDR-sometimes became
more pervasive. Post-totalitarianism could have led to moderate reforms in the
economy, like those discussed at the time of the Prague Spring, but the Brezhnev
restoration stopped dynamic adaptation in the USSR and in most other Soviettype
systems, except for Hungary and Poland.
17. The reference, of course, is to Albert Hirschman, Exit, Voice and Loyalty (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1970), 59. For a fascinating discussion of this dynamic in relation to the collapse of the GDR,
see Hirschman,"Exit, Voice and the Fate of the German Democratic Republic : An Essay on Conceptual History,"
World Politics 41 (January 1993):173-202 . We discuss the Kadar quote in greater detail in the chapter
on varieties of post-totalitarianism (chap . 17) .
Modern Nondemocratic Regimes 51
Post-totalitarianism had probably less legitimacy for the ruling elites and
above all the middle-level cadres than had a more totalitarian system . The loss of
the utopian component of the ideology and the greater reliance on performance
(which after some initial success did not continue) left the regimes vulnerable and
ultimately made the use of massive repression less justifiable. Passive compliance
and careerism opened the door to withdrawal into private life, weakening the
regime so that the opposition could ultimately force it to negotiate or to collapse
when it could not rely on coercion.
The weakness of post-totalitarian regimes has not yet been fully analyzed and
explained but probably can be understood only by keeping in mind the enormous
hopes and energies initially associated with Marxism-Leninism that in the past
explained the emergence of totalitarianism and its appeal .18 Many distinguished
and influential Western intellectuals admired or excused Leninism and in the
193os even Stalinism, but few Western intellectuals on the left could muster enthusiasm
for post-totalitarianism in the USSR or even for perestroika and glasnost.
As we shall see in part 4, the emergence and evolution of post-totalitarianism can
be the result of three distinct but often interconnected processes : (1) deliberate policies
of the rulers to soften or reform the totalitarian system (detotalitarianism by
choice), (2) the internal "hollowing out" of the totalitarian regimes' structures and
an internal erosion of the cadres' ideological belief in the system (detotalitarianism
by decay), and (3) the creation of social, cultural, and even economic spaces that resist
or escape totalitarian control (detotalitarianism by societal conquest) .
" SULTANISM"
A large group of polities, such as Haiti under the Duvaliers, the Dominican
Republic under Trujillo, the Central African Republic under Bokassa, the Philippines
under Marcos, Iran under the Shah, Romania under Ceausescu, and North
Korea under Kim Il Sung, have had strong tendencies toward an extreme form of
patrimonialism that Weber called sultanism. For Weber,
patrimonialism and, in the extreme case, sultanism tend to arise whenever traditional domination
develops an administration and a military force which are purely personal instruments of
the master. . . . Where domination . . . operates primarily on the basis of discretion, it will be
called sultanism . . . The non-traditional element is not, however, rationalized in impersonal
terms, but consists only in the extreme development of the ruler's discretion . It is this which
distinguishes it from every form of rational authority.19
18. On the ideological and moral attractiveness of revolutionary Marxist-Leninism as a total system and
the "vacuum" left in the wake of its collapse, see Ernest Gellner, "Homeland of the Unrevolution," Daedalus
(Summer 1993) :141-54-
19 . Max Weber, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, ed. Guenther Roth and Claus
Wittich (Berkeley : University of California Press, 1978),1 :231, 232 . Italics in the original .
52
	
Theoretical Overview
Weber did not intend the word sultanism to imply religious claims to obedience.
In fact, under Ottoman rule, the ruler held two distinct offices and titles,
that of sultan and that of caliph . Initially, the Ottoman ruler was a sultan, and only
after the conquest of Damascus did he assume the title of caliph, which entailed
religious authority. After the defeat of Turkey in World War I and the proclamation
of the republic, the former ruler lost his title of sultan but retained his religious
title of caliph until Atatfirk eventually forced him to relinquish even that
title. Our point is that the secular and religious dimensions of his authority were
conceptually and historically distinguished. Furthermore, the term sultan should
not be analytically bound to the Middle East. Just as there are mandarins in New
Delhi and Paris as well as in Peking and there is a macho style of politics in the
Pentagon as well as in Buenos Aires, there are sultanistic rulers in Africa and the
Caribbean as well as in the Middle East . What we do want the term sultanism to
connote is a generic style of domination and regime rulership that is, as Weber
says, an extreme form of patrimonialism . In sultanism, the private and the public
are fused, there is a strong tendency toward familial power and dynastic succession,
there is no distinction between a state career and personal service to the
ruler, there is a lack of rationalized impersonal ideology, economic success depends
on a personal relationship to the ruler, and, most of all, the ruler acts only
according to his own unchecked discretion, with no larger, impersonal goals .
Table 3.1 gives substantial details on what a sultanistic type is in relation to pluralism,
ideology, mobilization, and leadership . In this section we attempt to highlight
differences between sultanism, totalitarianism, and authoritarianism because,
while we believe they are distinct ideal types, in any concrete case a specific
polity could have a mix of some sultanistic and some authoritarian tendencies (a
combination that might open up a variety of transition options) or a mix of sultanistic
and totalitarian tendencies (a combination that would tend to eliminate
numerous transition options) .
In his long essay, "Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes," Juan Linz discussed
the special features that make sultanism a distinctive type of nondemocratic
regime.20 Since the sultanistic regime type has not been widely accepted in the literature,
we believe it will be useful for us to highlight systematically its distinctive
qualities so as to make more clear the implications of this type of regime for the
patterns of democratic resistance and the problems of democratic consolidation .
In sultanism, there is a high fusion by the ruler of the private and the public .
The sultanistic polity becomes the personal domain of the sultan . In this domain
there is no rule of law and there is low institutionalization . In sultanism there may
be extensive social and economic pluralism, but almost never political pluralism,
because political power is so directly related to the ruler's person . However, the
essential reality in a sultanistic regime is that all individuals, groups, and institu-
20 . Linz, "Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes," 259-63 •
i
Modern Nondemocratic Regimes 53
tions are permanently subject to the unpredictable and despotic intervention of
the sultan, and thus all pluralism is precarious .
In authoritarianism there may or may not be a rule of law, space for a semiopposition,
or space for regime moderates who might establish links with opposition
moderates, and there are normally extensive social and economic activities
that function within a secure framework of relative autonomy . Under sultanism,
however, there is no rule of law, no space for a semiopposition, no space for regime
moderates who might negotiate with democratic moderates, and no sphere
of the economy or civil society that is not subject to the despotic exercise of the
sultan's will. As we demonstrate in the next chapter, this critical difference between
pluralism in authoritarian and sultanistic regimes has immense implications
for the types of transition that are available in an authoritarian regime but
unavailable in a sultanistic regime .
There is also a sharp contrast in the function and consequences of ideology
between totalitarian and sultanistic regimes . In a totalitarian regime not only is
there an elaborate and guiding ideology, but ideology has the function of legitimating
the regime, and rulers are often somewhat constrained by their own value system
and ideology. They or their followers, or both, believe in that ideology as a point
of reference and justification for their actions . In contrast, a sultanistic ruler characteristically
has no elaborate and guiding ideology. There may be highly personalistic
statements with pretensions of being an ideology, often named after the sultan,
but this ideology is elaborated after the ruler has assumed power, is subject to extreme
manipulation, and, most importantly, is not believed to be constraining on
the ruler and is relevant only as long as he practices it . Thus, there could be questions
raised as to whether Stalin's practices and statements were consistent with
Marxism-Leninism, but there would be no reason for anyone to debate whether
Trujillo's statements were consistent with Trujilloism . The contrast between authoritarian
and sultanistic regimes is less stark over ideology ; however, the distinctive
mentalities that are a part of most authoritarian alliances are normally more
constraining on rulers than is the sultan's idiosyncratic and personal ideology.
The extensive and intensive mobilization that is a feature of totalitarianism is
seldom found in a sultanistic regime because of its low degree of institutionalization
and its low commitment to an overarching ideology. The low degree of organization
means that any mobilization that does occur is uneven and sporadic .
Probably the biggest difference between sultanistic mobilization and authoritarian
mobilization is the tendency within sultanism (most dramatic in the case of
the Duvalier's Tonton Macoutes in Haiti) to use para-state groups linked to the
sultan to wield violence and terror against anyone who opposes the ruler's will .
These para-state groups are not modern bureaucracies with generalized norms
and procedures; rather, they are direct extensions of the sultan's will . They have
no significant institutional autonomy. As Weber stressed, they are purely "personal
instruments of the master."
54
	
Theoretical Overview
Finally, how does leadership differ in sultanism, totalitarianism, and authoritarianism?
The essence of sultanism is unrestrained personal rulership . This personal
rulership is, as we have seen, unconstrained by ideology, rational-legal
norms, or any balance of power. "Support is based not on a coincidence of interest
between preexisting privileged social groups and the ruler but on interests created
by his rule, rewards he offers for loyalty, and the fear of his vengeance . 21
In one key respect leadership under sultanism and totalitarianism is similar.
In both regimes the leader rules with undefined limits on his power and there is
great unpredictability for elites and nonelites alike . In this respect, a Stalin and a
Somoza are alike . However, there are important differences. The elaborate ideology,
with its sense of nonpersonal and public mission, is meant to play an important
legitimating function in totalitarian regimes . The ideological pronouncements
of a totalitarian leader are taken seriously not only by his followers and
cadres, but also by the society and intellectuals, including-in the cases of Leninism,
Stalinism, and Marxism (and even fascism)-by intellectuals outside the
state in which the leader exercises control . This places a degree of organizational,
social, and ideological constraint on totalitarian leadership that is not present in
sultanistic leadership . Most importantly, the intense degree to which rulership is
personal in sultanism makes the dynastic dimension of rulership normatively acceptable
and empirically common, whereas the public claims of totalitarianism
make dynastic ambition, if not unprecedented, at least aberrant .
The leadership dimension shows an even stronger contrast between authoritarianism
and sultanism. As Linz stated in his discussion of authoritarianism, leadership
is exercised in an authoritarian regime "with formally ill-defined but actually
quite predictable" norms.22 In most authoritarian regimes some bureaucratic entities
play an important part . These bureaucratic entities often retain or generate their
own norms, which imply that there are procedural and normative limits on what
leaders can ask them to do in their capacity as, for example, military officers, judges,
tax officials, or police officers . However, a sultanistic leader simply "demands unconditional
administrative compliance, for the official's loyalty to his office is not an
impersonal commitment to impersonal tasks that define the extent and content of
his office, but rather a servant's loyalty based on a strictly personal relationship to
the ruler and an obligation that in principle permits no limitation ."23
We have now spelled out the central tendencies of five ideal-type regimes in the
modern world, four of which are nondemocratic. We are ready for the next step,
which is to explore why and how the type of prior nondemocratic regime has an
important effect on the democratic transition paths available and the tasks to be
addressed before democracy can be consolidated.
21 . Ibid ., 260.
22. Ibid., 255 .
23 . Ibid.,260 .