Maintaining a socially liberal authoritarianism

xsampa

Banned
Throughout the 20th century, authoritarian governments have tended to shift towards socially conservative positions, even if they were left-wing originally. For example, Stalin praised the nuclear family and outlawed homosexuality, despite the liberal attitudes of earlier Bolsheviks like Kollontai. How can an authoritarian state which started out as socially liberal maintain its liberalism?
 
I think a key issue with this is that non-traditional social structures encourage more chaos and disruption to the standing social order, which is obviously anathema to any authoritarian system.
 
Conservatism and further right-wing ideologies focus on order and control, especially in reaction to change. They’re all maintaining the status quo and keeping power and tradition unless the latter does not benefit them.

That’s why this tends to happen. That and by having an “us vs them” mentality, it’s easier to keep people complacement and not have them unite and overthrow you.

Social liberal authoritarianism is possible, but you’d the need the right kind of person and so on. Giving people a fair bit of guaranteed rights is a good way to keep them happy. You’d need to convince them to give liberty for order and security.

It’d require playing the long game. But if you keep everyone complacement and so on, they won’t rise to do much. Make sure basic needs are provided and accessible to everyone easily and most others you can use propaganda and so on to drown out complaints. Heck, you can use the media and social media to your advantage and trustworthiness by rooting people that are enemies of the states, like liars and manipulators.
 
Throughout the 20th century, authoritarian governments have tended to shift towards socially conservative positions, even if they were left-wing originally. For example, Stalin praised the nuclear family and outlawed homosexuality, despite the liberal attitudes of earlier Bolsheviks like Kollontai. How can an authoritarian state which started out as socially liberal maintain its liberalism?

If society is enforcing a particular social policy as a required form of thinking for social acceptance, than over time that social policy becomes the "conservative" position. I'm order to have tolerated liberal values, you have to acknowledge that people ought to be free to make dissident devisions,/hold views that conflict with the social concensus without facing major consquences... which is a horrible mindset if you want docile subjects.
 
Secularist regimes in arab and/or Islamic nations would probably fit the bill here, at least relative to the equally(if not moreso) undemocratic fundamentalists they were trying to keep out of power.

if you're looking for a dictator who is socially liberal in absolute terms, and trying to keep out socially conservative democrats(think General Pinochet with the social views of Harvey Milk, fighting against the followers of a Falwellian Allende), that's probably not gonna happen, for the reasons outlined elsewhere in this thread.
 
Secularist regimes in arab and/or Islamic nations would probably fit the bill here, at least relative to the equally(if not moreso) undemocratic fundamentalists they were trying to keep out of power.

if you're looking for a dictator who is socially liberal in absolute terms, and trying to keep out socially conservative democrats(think General Pinochet with the social views of Harvey Milk, fighting against the followers of a Falwellian Allende), that's probably not gonna happen, for the reasons outlined elsewhere in this thread.
The closest you can get is Ferdinand Marcos, IMO. Remember for much of the 1980s he would portray his opposition as literally Catholic versions of Khomeini. Dutertism might be another example, though whether it's really just neo-Marcosism is debateable.
 
Aleksandar Vučić is an Orbán-style autocrat, but he has nominated a gay woman to be his prime minister, so he at least pretend to be a socially liberal.
 
Musharraf appointed a Hindu to the Supreme Court, which by Pakistani standards is socially ultra-liberal. He was also a military dictator. Ayub Khan was also relatively secular. Pakistan's other two military dictators, however, were ultra-Islamists.

Indira Gandhi was immensely socially liberal, with a Dalit Minister of Defence (until their falling out), involvement in women's issues, enshrining of equal pay in the constitution, and abolition of the privy purse. She also had strong authoritarian tendencies.
 
Austria-Hungary probably fits the bill of a liberal authoritarian state. The Emperors held a large degree of power over the parliament, but they were willing to accept a pretty wide array of languages and religions in exchange for political loyalty. The Habsburgs never really responded to the rise of mass politics, but they were relatively tolerant towards their jewish subjects compared to other nineteenth century European powers.
 
The truth about many Eastern Bloc dictatorships is that they were aggressively socially liberal in terms of their assault on the family structure and on religion. Stalin was a deviation rather than the rule, and even with him, I'm not sure if his praise of the nuclear family wasn't more wrapped up in his cult of personality with him as the "father figure". Stalin had attacked religion consistently up until 1941 when he figured out that it was helpful in both shoring up his own position in regards to the cult of personality, as well as in the war against the Germans, much like the Tsar had used religion in 1812 against Napoleon.

The entire living model of massive tenement housing and planned economic activity was supposed to dissemble intermediary institutions between the state and the individual, such as the family and local community organizations not tied to the state (like independent trade unions, churches, clubs, etc.)

And religion was relentlessly attacked in this period in some Eastern Bloc states , while others merely tried to co-opt churches into state organs while dismantling any semblance of their original doctrine.

I suppose a good example however could be the Turkish military when it resorted to authoritarian coups in the name of secularism.
 
Top