Military Rule
Military rule is characterized by military elites, rather than civilians, running the
government. There are various reasons why militaries rise to political power in a
society. One is that they possess the material means – the weapons and
organizational capacity – to seize control over a society. On the demand side, a
population might support military rule because of popular perceptions of the
competence of the military, especially if there are charismatic or well-known generals
leading the military. In some cases, the military might appear to be a particularly stable
and orderly institution during a time of political turmoil. This in turn may appeal to
certain segments of society (such as economic elites, who especially value stability)
or entire war-weary societies.
There exists a continuum for thinking about the role of militaries within a polity.
On one end of this continuum, developed democracies are grounded in civilian control
of the military. In the example of Canada, the commander-in-chief of the Canadian
military is the Canadian monarch. The reverse, total military control over the civilian
population, falls on the opposite end of this continuum, and in these nondemocratic
situations the military is not accountable to the public, even for gross human rights
violations. Burma is a prominent example of a country which has been subject to
repressive military rule for significant chunks of its post-colonial independence since
1948. The Burmese military, known as the Tatmadaw, appeared to allow some
liberalization and turn toward civilian leadership during the 2010s, but in the 2020s it
has again asserted control over the country and its political apparatus.
Another category of authoritarianism that is worth considering is that of the
electoral authoritarian state. This category is difficult to define but generally it is a state
that has some political rights, such as elections that are somewhat free and fair, but
lacks consistent respect for civil liberties and rights. The difficulty here is that
democracies can easily fall into this category, even if temporarily. But it is worth
considering because states in this category may be good candidates for further
democratic consolidation. Similarly, democracies that continue with elections but begin
to curtail civil liberties may be candidates for democratic backsliding. There are
innumerable examples over time as listed in Figure 97 above. Another example is
Algeria, which is currently considered (as of 2023) a constitutional semi-presidential
republic. Following Algeria’s war of independence from France, the postcolonial state
developed highly centralized military and secret police apparatus. For a time, only one
party, the revolutionary FLN (National Liberation Front) was allowed to run for office,
but since 1988 other parties were introduced. The most recent elections, in 2017, were
deemed mostly fair but media is tightly controlled. A well known journalist and
podcaster was recently arrested for accepting foreign money, which many believe are
trumped up charges (Al Jazeera, 2023). Having explored the definition of authoritarian
states, how they remain in power, and the typology of authoritarianism we use to try
to classify these states, we turn to a classic study in authoritarianism: Russia.
Snapshot Case Study: Russia
Full Country Name: Russian Federation
Head(s) of State: President Vladimir Putin
Head of Government: Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin
Government: Authoritarian Semi-presidential Federation
Official Languages: Russian
Economic System: Mixed economy
Location: Eastern Europe and Northern Asia
Capital: Moscow
Total land size: 170,982,46 sq km, 6,601,670 sq mi
Population: 145,478,097
GDP: $1.710 trillion
GDP per capita: $11,654
Currency: Russian Ruble
Monarchical Rule 1613-1917
For centuries, Russia was a key node in the trade routes that wound throughout
Afro-Eurasia. Russian explorers traded furs and other animal products for the goods
available along these ancient routes: gold, people, and spices. Political consolidation
gained momentum during the sixteenth century under Ivan the Terrible, who claimed
the title of czar and ruled from 1547 to 1584. He joined with the powerful House of
Romanov by marriage and this began a three century period of czarist rule that would
last until revolution in the twentieth century. During this czarist period, Russia was
organized as a feudal state in which power was consolidated in the czar but local
power also existed in noble houses. Ivan the Terrible consolidated the czar’s power in
Moscow through the creation of standing armies and noble councils. The Orthodox
Church provided the religious foundation for political power and state legitimacy. Ivan
expanded the territorial reach of Russian rule after defeating khanates in what is now
modern-day Russia, along the northwestern shores of the Caspian Sea at the mouth
of the Volga River. Subsequent czars, such as Peter the Great (r. 1682-1725) initiated
reforms to modernize Russia with military upgrades and the building of a navy,
construction of public buildings in European architectural styles, and support for
industrialization.
Throughout these centuries of czarist rule, Russia struggled with forging its own
path on a vast continent. To the west, new ideas were bubbling up during the
Enlightenment, and industrialization and modernization were taking off. To the east,
empires of Asia were economically dynamic and some, such as Japan, were also
rapidly modernizing. In comparison to European counterparts, Russia was slow to
industrialize. Yet Russian society was not immune to modern ideas, and the
abolishment of serfdom in 1861 presented a break with the past. This was not enough
to contain growing mass discontent with a brittle political system of czars and noble
houses, and revolution broke out in the early years of the twentieth century.
As with much of the world, the twentieth century was a decisive time of change
for Russia. In 1905, mass protests broke out in the cities and resulted in Czar Nicholas
II creating a legislature. Unrest continued, and this period presented a moment for
republican revolution and unprecedented transformation in Russia. The moment
passed, however, with the revolution of 1917. This revolution was led by Vladimir Lenin
and political parties that adhered to socialism and communism as the path forward for
Russia. A vicious civil war ensued, with the Bolsheviks emerging triumphant. Lenin
took the mantle as Russia’s paramount political leader and forged a federation under
single-party rule.
Organized as a multi-ethnic and multi-national federation, the USSR became
the largest sovereign country on the planet, stretching from the Baltics to the eastern
shores of Siberia. The USSR’s first leader, Vladimir Lenin, carried out radical
wholescale reorganization of the state and society. State-led modernization and
industrialization became the watchwords of this time; the countryside was squeezed
for the products that would feed urban industrial centers. In this single-party system,
led by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), the state was pervasive in
all aspects of life. Economically, free markets were abolished and replaced by
centralized economic planning: production would proceed according to five-year plans
set by a vast planning bureaucracy. The countryside was organized into communes,
with production quotas and set prices. The state owned all “commanding heights” of
industry, from energy production to steel foundries. Again, production and prices were
set, and workers were assigned to workplaces. In this world, there was no inflation
and no unemployment – but there existed scarcity and supply-side distortions.
Production quotas were set by the state in the USSR. This included the cotton harvest
in Armenia, which was part of the USSR. This photo was taken in the 1930s and sought
to demonstrate the abundance of the Soviet system.
Socially and culturally, the CPSU controlled all aspects of life. The media was
entirely state-run, across all communication technologies such as radio, print, and
television. The party organized youth groups, women’s federations, and provided for
leisure spaces. While the party was officially atheist, it permitted state-sanctioned
places of worship. There was no independent organized social life for Soviet citizens.
Politically, the party maintained control through a competitive selection process for
party membership; the most desirable offices in the party and state bureaucracies
were open only to party members. Appointments were carefully controlled through
party personnel bureaucracies, which maintained classified files on all citizens. To
enforce party rule through force, Lenin created secret police known as the Cheka,
which was the forerunner to the KGB. While there existed paramount leaders within
the CPSU, beginning with Lenin and then the disastrous totalitarianism of Stalin,
leadership was also collective in some ways. Major party decisions were made through
bodies such as the Politburo and disseminated throughout the party and state
apparatus.
Communist party rule lasted for seven decades. Internal weaknesses festered,
from ethnic resentments to economic distortions to political stagnation. By the 1980s,
reform-minded leaders such as Mikhail Gorbachev attempted small steps toward
loosening economic and social controls. By then, it was too late. The 1980s were a
restive time throughout the USSR, in the Baltics and the Caucasus, Ukraine and
Moldova. In 1989, a string of revolutions in client states of the USSR led to the
overthrow of communist parties in East Germany, Poland, Hungary, and Romania,
among others. In 1990, there was an attempted coup in Moscow. Through a cascade
of shocking events in 1991, the Soviet Union dissolved: one after another, republics
seceded from the federation and declared themselves independent. On December 25,
1991, the Soviet flag was lowered from the Kremlin and the Russian flag replaced it.
Electoral Authoritarianism, 1991-present
In the decades since the collapse of the Soviet Union, institutions created by
the CPSU were dismantled. Central planning, state-owned industry, and communes
went into the dustbin of history. Russia and many of the fourteen other post-Soviet
republics adopted liberal market economies, to varying degrees, and multi-party
political systems. The transition was rocky in every case. The Russia that emerged
from the ashes of the Soviet Union had many assets. It possessed great energy
reserves and mineral wealth and a highly educated population base, along with
thousands of nuclear weapons and a sophisticated military-industrial complex. All of
this was leveraged to maintain Russia’s status as a regional power. Today Russia is a
major energy provider to the European Union, and it has maintained client states in
Eurasia such as Belarus and Syria.
While there was hope that Russia would join the liberal European fold in the
early 1990s, those hopes have since been dashed. Since the breakup of single party
rule under the CPSU, Russia has maintained an electoral authoritarian regime.
Elections are neither free nor fair according to election observers. Non-state
organizations are allowed to exist, but they are subject to harassment by state security
agencies if they promote rights considered taboo by conservative Russian leaders and
the Orthodox Church. While there are some media freedoms in the country, it remains
a dangerous, and even deadly, place for investigative reporters. The courts are not
independent, nor does it appear that presidents such as Vladimir Putin are subject to
the rule of law.
Putin has benefited from the legacy of the Bolshevik Revolution despite not
coming to power during this violent upheaval. The Soviet Union prevented civil society
from taking root, and he utilized the extensive security apparatus from the Soviet days
to his advantage in maintaining control. According to a recent study, Russia has more
personnel in the current FSB (Federal Security Service) than it did under Soviet rule.
The FSB is responsible for a number of assassinations of opposition activists.
In 2014 and 2022, Russian military assets were used to annex Ukraine's
Crimean Peninsula and invade Ukraine in its entirety, respectively. One powerful
rationale was to consolidate the Russian nation -- despite popular Ukrainian assertions
of a distinct Ukrainian identity -- and Russia's future as a disruptive, undemocratic
force remains problematic for the region and beyond. The FSB has also penetrated
the military, lessening the likelihood of a military coup, even in the wake of the invasion
that has not gone as well as Putin thought.
In summary, Russia has experienced centuries of non-democratic rule, and
“varieties of nondemocracy” are evident in tracing the history. There were moments
when it appeared that republicanism might prevail, such as early in the twentieth
century and at the end of that same century, but those moments were fleeting. Each
non-democratic regime established institutions to maintain social order and economic
and political control; each succeeded for varying lengths of time. Feudal rule under
czars persisted for centuries, and Russia’s modernization lagged as a result. Single-
party rule by the CPSU created a totalitarian system of large-scale economic tragedies
and political repression. Today, there are comparatively more spaces for freedom in
authoritarian Russia, but they remain highly circumscribed.
