The Myth of the Efficient Autocracy

And why this is mostly a myth

There are many different forms of government around the world today, and all of these have their strengths and weaknesses.

Those who argue for a more authoritarian form of government point to the fact that such a system allows countries to act quickly and decisively, as in such a system, the leader’s power is not hamstrung by the checks and balances that are present in a democracy.

Furthermore, in such a system where the leader and his entourage are able to occupy their positions for several decades, they are capable to make and execute long-term plans, a proposition that is often impossible in a democracy where politicians last in their positions for a few mandates, if even that long, and the new executive leadership can take a turn that is much different than what their predecessors were doing, thus sabotaging the implementation of long term policies which would need several mandates to bore visible results, results that are seen by the voters on whose goodwill the career of the politicians ultimately rests.

I think in an ideal world an autocracy can be a very efficient system, and just looking at how the CCP managed to turn China into a superpower in as little as four decades, one could argue an autocracy can be efficient even in the real world.

Nonetheless, I’d argue that China being a great power and the dominant force of the Far East was rather the norm all throughout the several thousand years long history of China and not something that is solely the merit of the CCP. And if we take another glance around the world and look at the other dictatorships of the present and the past, authoritarian regimes start to look a lot less impressive in comparison to the decadent western democracies.

One reaccuring topos we hear nowadays is that democracies are incredibly corrupt, politicians are self-serving, and no matter who we vote into office, our world will look more or less the same.

I think there’s more than an element of truth in this, however, I would add that in my opinion, corruption and nepotism also, are not elements that are a reserve of a democratic society, but these traits are the unpleasant realities of human nature, especially nepotism.

And I do not even need to look far to see the examples for it, I see plenty of examples in my own family or clique of friends. Not one of my friends has shamelessly boasted that they bribed their way out of trouble when they were caught speeding, for example, it’s petty corruption, but at the end of the day, it is corruption. And if someone does it at a petty level, there’s a good chance they might try their luck with more serious corruption also, be it for avoiding something or for seeking profit.

Leaving behind the petty examples, I think it is the higher level of transparency in comparison to an autocracy, that is giving democracies their bad reputation in regards to corruption. Democratic countries can have an endemic level of corruption for sure, but people can become outraged when they hear the prosecutors dragging corrupt politicians and businessmen to the courts because at least they are getting punished for breaking the law.

Though my constitutional law professor often loudly ranted during our courses against Romania’s anticorruption agency, believing rightly or wrongly that this office is not independent of the executive power, and thus not conforming with the legal theory of the separation of the three different branches of power( legislative, executive and judicial), this agency at least exists and already brought to trial and sometimes to jail several high-level corrupt politicians, something that cannot be said about many of the neighbouring countries.

A country which has an autocratic form of government can also find out at its own expense that the personal shortcommings of its leader can hinder the progress of their country.

I think the perfect example right now to demonstrate this point would be Russia. Despite his image of being a very efficient strongman and being in power for well over two decades by now, Vladimir Putin lead his country into a war against Ukraine, which they failed to win for seven months already.

Those who jumped to Putin’s defence since February 2022 like to point out that he was let down by his intelligence services and his armed forces, however, I find these excuses ridiculous, as a man who is in office for two decades has to share the bulk of the blame if the state’s organizations are underperforming.

In 20, 30, or 40 years time from now, some clever historians no doubt will write in the detail about the Putin regime and the ins and outs of its decision-making process, the pros and cons included, but with the image we have of it right now, I personally see only the ineffectiveness that usually plagues most autocratic regimes, namely people being chose to office based on their loyalty towards the leader rather than merit and the endemic level of corruption sabotaging the reforms the centre planned to implement.

This is not something that is present in autocracies only, as in democracies politicians can and often do rely on people who are more loyal than capable, but in a democratic society at least has its chance to give its immune reaction to the inefficient government by voting them out of office when their mandate comes to an end. In an autocracy, as the leader can stay in power for decades, and unless a crisis point comes that highlights the inefficiencies, mediocrity combined with loyalty can remain in office for as long as the man in the office does not fall out of favour.

An oppressive intellectual atmosphere which is often the baggage that comes with an authoritarian government is hardly the right enviroment to produce innovations. Time and again throughout the last 500 years, we have seen examples that a freer society was able to punch above its weight and take on societies which had infinitely greater resources but were shackled by economical and intellectual backwardness brought by a more repressive style of government.

Time and again throughout the last 500 years of history we saw freer, by the standards of the age, defeat more repressive governments. The best example of a small nation rising would probably be the Dutch Republic, which despite its small size, dominated maritime trade for a century. The fact that Revolutionary France was able to take on the whole of Europe on its own, that among the victorious Entente powers it was only the authoritarian Russia that collapsed and not Britain or France, that the Cold War was won by the West and not the Soviet Union was no coincidence, but the natural progression of such societies when pushed to their limits.

Finally, just one look at the widely differing living standards provided by a democratic society to an authoritarian one is also telling me that an efficient autocracy is a myth. One very good example of this would be western and eastern Europe. The west was always more developed than the east, but at no time throughout history did this gulf expand as much and as quickly as during the Cold War, when the west really pulled away from the members of the Warsaw Pact countries, which were shackled by the Soviet-style planned economies.

If you liked this article, consider checking out my other articles too: