I know the idea sounds like an oxymoron at face value, but let's not be lazy and try to imagine how such a regime or society could come into existence. Because this is AH.com, we've made weirder concepts work in the past.

Basically, my general idea is that we have a state/regime which is very socially liberal and would seem progressive and enlightened to our minds, but is at its core fundamentally anti-democratic (and democracy-phobic, for lack of a better term). Civic liberties of a certain sort are allowed and encouraged, but they are kept on a tight leash and every citizen who the regime deems a threat is dealt with by either subtle or more blatant intimidation. Minorities within the society are treated well, in order to prevent revolution or the majority symphathizing with their plight and rising to their defence against the regime. Again, the regime doesn't treat these minorities of all sorts well out of conviction, but out of sheer pragmatism and self-serving cynicism. The single most important tenent of this regime is "give the people bread and circuses, give them a feeling of sophistication and an illussion of dissent against the regime, and quash any efforts to undermine the system in place".

On the foreign relations front, a country with this kind of regime/ideology is also imperialistic, xenophobic and has a clumsily concealed "messianic complex" about slowly changing the rest of the world - by diplomacy or force of arms - to their way of seeing and running things.
 
It wouldn't neccesarily cross all those fronts, but have enlightened absolutism survive and thrive? It was already married to the enlightenment to the point of being unable to escape liberalism, but could take it in a very drastically different fashion. Have enough monarchies convert to this new system and they could survive off of the small nature of many European monarchies of the time not having much f a minority problem.

I could imagine such regimes to be reminiscent of the kind of ideals held by Erik Von Keuhnelt-Leddihn. Though anti-liberal by identification, he also describes himself as liberty oriented and though e advocated anti-democratic monarchism would be easily identified as a "libertarian".
 
Take a look at Imperial Germany, you simply seem to have them on steroids.

Nah, they were too militaristic, and the social progresiveness was more lip service than a genuine, pan-societal sentiment.

It wouldn't neccesarily cross all those fronts, but have enlightened absolutism survive and thrive? It was already married to the enlightenment to the point of being unable to escape liberalism, but could take it in a very drastically different fashion. Have enough monarchies convert to this new system and they could survive off of the small nature of many European monarchies of the time not having much f a minority problem.

Yes, I've thought about enlightened absolutism being more viable and sticking on for longer as one of several possible solutions for the basis of this AH idea.

I could imagine such regimes to be reminiscent of the kind of ideals held by Erik Von Keuhnelt-Leddihn. Though anti-liberal by identification, he also describes himself as liberty oriented and though e advocated anti-democratic monarchism would be easily identified as a "libertarian".

Very interesting, I might look into this !

Until now, I have been toying with the idea of making "Benthamism" more successful and have a particular offshoot of it appear during the 19th century and eventually develop into a kind of... well, not-protofascism, but certainly authoritarianism of the "the state is father, the state is mother, and always knows what's good for you" overbearing sort.

Who knows, I might combine this idea of a "corrupted/crooked Benthamism" with the ideas of the fellow you've mentioned. I need to research him better first, but maybe...
 
Last edited:
Try looking at Guyana. Very left wing on international issues, free press as well.

Except that there's never enough newsprint to allow non-government newspapers of more than a few pages, the radio and TV news only ever interview government spokesmen, and the ruling party (PPP) is almost entirely Asian in membership and support.

The weird thing is that the situation was exactly the same under the Afro-Caribbean PNC.
 

Lateknight

Banned
Try looking at Guyana. Very left wing on international issues, free press as well.

Except that there's never enough newsprint to allow non-government newspapers of more than a few pages, the radio and TV news only ever interview government spokesmen, and the ruling party (PPP) is almost entirely Asian in membership and support.

The weird thing is that the situation was exactly the same under the Afro-Caribbean PNC.

That's a small nation with a small population with little infrastructure I think those factors are more to blame for those things then authoritarianism.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
didn't Kemalist/Secular Turkey, Jordanian, Afghan, Iran and Morocco Monarchy, and current Egypt fit this definition ? the authoritarian regime treat women and minority a lot better that what people actually want
 
didn't Kemalist/Secular Turkey, Jordanian, Afghan, Iran and Morocco Monarchy, and current Egypt fit this definition ? the authoritarian regime treat women and minority a lot better that what people actually want

I was under the impression that the UAE was like that too.
 
I feel that Reactionary thought could evolve into technocratic thought and support even a meritocratic advancement but still ultimately be against democratic action.
 
How about British Hong Kong during the 70s to 80s? It was a anti-democratic regime, yet it provided good social welfare, low unemployment, and a robust industrial economy, academics were free to discuss and research any political theories and won't be threatened, all forms of religions were tolerated, and remember that during the times it was the golden age of Hong Kong movie industry, indicating the society held a significant degree of civil liberties; while the political structure is after all undemocratic, the Governor held the authority to organize the Executive Council and presided the Legislative Council, and was the Commander-in-Chief of the local armed forces, all of his power was only be restricted by red tapes.
 
didn't Kemalist/Secular Turkey, Jordanian, Afghan, Iran and Morocco Monarchy, and current Egypt fit this definition ? the authoritarian regime treat women and minority a lot better that what people actually want

Not really. They were big about creating modern women because they believed that to modernize your country you need to modernize the female half of the population (right on the broad strokes, lots on the details that's being missed) so as they saw it liberal policies towards women (in practice meant making the women look and act more Western) were critical for making modern nations. A good way to sum it up would be feminism for all the wrong reasons.
 
That's a small nation with a small population with little infrastructure I think those factors are more to blame for those things then authoritarianism.

Yeah. Plus, what he is describing is cronyism in national politics. Not exactly something applicable to a rich, developed and militarily powerful regime of the kind I'm looking for with this AHC. (Note that, despite the probability, my requirement for such a country/regime is not limited to the OTL developed regions of Europe, Asia or North America - you can pluck it down anywhere, as long as you keep it plausible and within the framework I've given in the OP.)

Not really. They were big about creating modern women because they believed that to modernize your country you need to modernize the female half of the population (right on the broad strokes, lots on the details that's being missed) so as they saw it liberal policies towards women (in practice meant making the women look and act more Western) were critical for making modern nations. A good way to sum it up would be feminism for all the wrong reasons.

This wasn't limited to just them, either. I can confirm to you that feminism and female emancipation in the communist East Block took on a similarly utilitarian viewpoint. As in "you can do almost anything that men can do, but we'll still insinuate you should stay in the kitchen, allow your boss to harass you and never complain about your lower wages". (There's an old commie era joke about a co-op not being able to gather potatoes from a very dried field with tractors, so the foreman of the harvest gave the order to send out the women to gather the potatoes instead.)

How about British Hong Kong during the 70s to 80s? It was a anti-democratic regime, yet it provided good social welfare, low unemployment, and a robust industrial economy, academics were free to discuss and research any political theories and won't be threatened, all forms of religions were tolerated, and remember that during the times it was the golden age of Hong Kong movie industry, indicating the society held a significant degree of civil liberties; while the political structure is after all undemocratic, the Governor held the authority to organize the Executive Council and presided the Legislative Council, and was the Commander-in-Chief of the local armed forces, all of his power was only be restricted by red tapes.

Singapore.

It doesn't fully fit the requirements I've set up in the OP. Plus, like Guyana, it is a small country/territory (even moreso). And I've put this Challenge into Before 1900 for a good reason. My ideal genesis point of a regime like this would be some time during the 18th century, or during the first half of the 19th century.

I think more secular than liberal.

Yeah.
 
Last edited:
How about South Korea? Not that it's the model, of course, but it has the greatest potential to be one for a stable, long-term period of time. My 1974 TL will explore the options for such a political philosophy. The country may look small, but it's a completely different animal from city-states like Hong Kong, Singapore or even Taiwan. Liberal democracy provided by the all-controlling government under the name of more efficient control? Sounds plausible.
 
Top