The Political Culture of Authoritarianism in Mexico: A Reexamination

This content is available through online browsing (free) program dependent on page scan. Screen readers can not currently scan, so please contact JSTOR user support for access. We will provide PDF copy of your screen reader

24, 400/43. Authoritarianism and political change in the Middle East Academic research on domestic politics in the Middle East recently focuses on "democratization" or "transition from democratic rule to democracy". In this seminar, we investigated the cause and the sustainability of the form of dictatorship in the Middle East and further explored the theoretical understanding of "democratization" and democracy. The general concept of political politics in the Middle East shows that authoritarian rule comes from the deep sedimentary nature of Arab and Muslim heritage. The literature we are exploring shows that the roots of authoritarian political practice is not the original Arab culture, but the complex dynamics of the history of national development, national construction and economic development. We will also discuss recent changes in the Middle East and evaluate how they are interpreted as a way to "democracy". (C)

Totalism is an extreme version of authoritarianism. The main difference between authoritarianism and totalitarianism is the existence of social and economic systems that are not controlled by the government. Based on the work of Yale University political scientist Juanlinz, Paul C. Sondolo of Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs examined the characteristics of authoritarian and totalitarian dictators and compiled them into charts: (2) concept of role Distinguish between totalitarian and authority. Authoritarians regard themselves as individuals, mainly to manage and maintain the status quo. Totalitarian self-concept is mainly object theory. Tyrant is not a person who leads indispensable function of the universe and changes shape.