Ifda dossier 47, May/June 1985

Methodologically, the authoritarian state not only expands executive
power over the bureaucracy and the military but promulgates a new legal
order to give constitutional effect to that extension. Terror becomes
generalised, the security forces are "deprofessionalised", "nepotism and
clientelism" become rampant and there is manipulation of the media and
the electoral process.
Thomas regards the authoritarian state as a new socio-political category
that is different from European facism. Further, it is not the end of a
process but can in fact degenerate further into military dictatorship or
deeper repression.
Among the examples of the authoritarian state cited by Thomas are Chile,
Guyana, South Korea, Philippines, Iran (under the Shah), Uganda (under
Idi Amin), Grenada (under Eric Gairy), and Brazil and Uruguay under the
military. But he argues that the phenomena is more dangerous when the
state adopts the ideology of "pseudo-socialism".
In this situation, socialism authoritarianism and arbitrary rule "have
become increasingly equated in the public consciousness" and hence "the
future project of creating a more equitable, socially just and non-
exploiting society is discredited". The author addresses the questions
of how do citizens get rid of the authoritarian state and how do they
prevent it from rising in the first place.
While Thomas describes accurately the manifested characteristics of the
authoritarian state and the economic and social bases of its roots, the
analysis does not sufficiently explain why it occurs in some places and
not in others where the objective conditions appear similar. He con-
cedes that the rise of the authoritarian state is "not automatic", but
depends on the response of the ruling classes to "anti-capitalist,
anti-imperialist and domestic struggles" waged in these countries.
What is not so well explained is why these struggles are engaged in some
places and not in others and why some societies are able to maintain
social peace and provide reasonable access to opportunity even when
their economies are underdeveloped. Another unexplored theme is the
extent to which internal factors, such as ethnicity, are exploited by
leaders and social groups to enhance the social and economic power by
one over the other.
Thomas notes that the unwillingness to recognise signs of
authoritarianism in the early stages not only help in its ultimate crea-
tion but adds an additional difficulty in getting rid of the problem.
The correct political practice to end authoritarianism, Thomas argues,
is to form a "cross class alliance", but not just to change the
government. "What is at stake is a fundamental transformation of state
and political relations in favour of the popular forces". But he
concedes that the forging of this alliance is difficult and will not be
readily accepted by "dogmatic, purist marxists" who do not share this
strategy and see themselves as being in the vanguard role.If formed,
Thomas makes an intense plea that such an alliance should try to build
democracy and to seek a clear understanding of the United States' role
in the survival of authoritarian states.
(continued on page 46)