Autocratic and Democratic leaders in an organization: Research Help

Organization Behavior Research essay question:

In your considered opinion what makes the transition from authoritarian government to a democracy difficult, and what is required to make for a successful transition?

Assignment Solution:

There is always an ongoing debate regarding the difficulty in changing the authoritarian government to a democratic government. Though the transition from authoritarian government to democracy is difficult, still it is very important in this world of today. As history entails that rulers have cheated and conducted bigotry in the name of good governance. With repeated such instances the people of the nations desperately want to break the shackles of the torture and want to elect their own ruler. But at the same time some would say that a government who is strict can only lead the country to the right path. Lest people are commanded from a position of power to behave in a virtuous manner they would not. This means that both the government, authoritarian as well as democratic both has equal flaws and equal benefits. Thus the total transition of one form of government to another is very difficult for people to accept. Therefore this debate is never ending. It is a kind of government ruled by one person who commands obedience to his words by all his people. Bhakti suggested that the citizens of this type of government have no say over the decisions made by the leader. They always need to abide by the words said by their leader. It follows a top-down command structure where the command comes from the top authority and flows downward to the people in the grass root level. The nature of governing is in a military style. Only one political party rules in such a state. A military or a coup chooses the leader. The people of the state have no freedom of speech. The assembly too has no freedom to conduct a meeting without the permission of the leader. Travelling is restricted within the state and anyone going against the leader is brutally punished. All information is censored. On the other hand in a democratic government people have a say on the decision of the government. It deals with three basic features. They have a political system from where the leader is chosen and when not desirable can be replaced. The people of the state actively participate in the political affairs. They also have the power to elect their own government. In a democratic government citizens are secured by all the human rights. Not only that, the rule of the law displayed equal rights to all the people of the state. Discrimination in any form is not allowed. Here the government needs to abide by the commands of the governed. There is a down-top structure of power where the power circulates from the citizens to their leader. Here the people have the power to choose the representation of a leader in the parliament. If they dislike the rule of their leader, they have to power to criticize them and go against them. The elected leaders in the national as well as in the local levels have to response to the requisites of the citizens. All the political parties can carry out their campaign freely without fear. If the leaders fail to provide the citizen with their needs, they might be demoted from their position in the next election.

Due to the various reasons, it is make the transition from authoritarian government to a sheer democracy. Researchers say that it is easy for one single leader to rule a nation other than numerous political parties having opinion on a single thing. In authoritarian government the leader can take all the decisions fast whereas in a democracy numbers of parties are required to pass one bill. George (2009) suggested that having said that it is also important to notice that opinion of various experienced leaders is also important to take the right decision. Ufen (2008) suggested that though the rule of democracy is much more stable yet the corruption that prevails in the minds of various political leaders is taking the state to a deplorable end. Most of the representatives of a political party take bribes to do a work properly, candidates are bought, most of the legislatures work as a broker under the private companies, and the rich financers direct the leaders to formulate the policies to suit their needs. Hadiz (2008) suggested that in general, the whole system of democracy is not very clean and fair as it apparently seems. Thus when such faulty system of governance is surfaced in front of the people, they support authoritarian rule over democracy. The people then feel that even though they have to abide by the commands of their leader, at least corruption and bigotry does not breathe in their government. Hence the total shift from authoritarian to democracy becomes difficult.

John (2009) suggested that the political culture of the nation plays a very important part in changing the form of the government. Down the centuries nations have been under the one party rule. They have been used to a rule where their participation in the government was negligible. All their needs were fulfilled by one person without having being elected their own leader. They also saw that being in an authoritarian government their nations have reached the zenith of success. This is what most of the Chinese people think. This kind of government also helps a nation to bind together. Sarsar (2006) suggested that the citizens of the state have a strong loyalty towards their nation. As they need to do everything for the benefit of the nation, they five more important to their country than themselves.The feeling of being together and working for the leader is entrenched in their mind. They are explained that whatever have been done are for their good. Restriction of their speech, mobility and even internet access would help to be nation bound. Thus it is very difficult change the minds of such people who have never thought anything beyond their nation. They are much more disciplined and obedient as their minds are trained to listen to their leader. The very concept of democracy would go beyond their minds. Therefore the shift from authoritarian government to democracy is difficult.

It has been proven by history that authoritarian government succeeded in the times of the economic depression. As the control is at the hands of only one leader he could take decisions fast without having consulted with numerous political parties. The leaders could take immediate actions to prevent the condition from worsening the state further. They did not have to wait for numerous bills to be passed. The export, production and expense were handled by a central body. Duke (2008) suggested that Japan recovered very fast after the Great Depression as compared to the West. This happened because of the authoritarian leadership. Even though the rule of Stalin is considered to be fascist in nature, it helped Soviet Union to recovery soon after the economic depression.  Liza (2006) suggested that with the help of total industrialism, Stalin was successful in getting back the much drained wealth which the country lost. But at the same time, the sheer control of one leader in the state is often questioned. The opinions of various leaders are always helpful in such a dire situation like economic crisis. A country is vast place where billions of people live. A stable economy is required to for their smooth livelihood. Thus various opinions of experienced leaders are very important. But as the history gives a successful picture of the recovery of the economy fast due to single leader state it is difficult to shift the government from authoritarian to democracy

In spite of the fact that there are many citizens who still want to stay under an authoritarian state, it is important to make them understand that in the world of today democracy is needed. With the onset of globalization the minds of the people are also widening. The citizens of the authoritian state need to be taught the importance of giving their opinions on policies. It should be entrenched in their minds that it is important for them to elect their own leader. Unless they have the power to do that, they will never get what they want from their nation.  They should be given the example of states which failed miserably due to authoritarian leaders. They torture of Adolf Hitler and Stalin should be taught in the schools where the children too will be provoked to stay in captivity. Independence is what the world enjoys. They should be made to realize that they are just mere slaves in the hands of their leader. The human rights like right to vote, right to speech, right to mobility, right to have their own property are few things which are very important for people to experience. John (2003) suggested that the people should be given the right to protest what’s wrong. They should be taught the importance and all the virtues of a democratic government. The citizens of the authoritarian government should realize that in democracy everyone is equal in the eyes of the law and even the leader. But in their state, the leader enjoys all the luxury and pomp and makes the people work. The corrupt leader makes wealth from the hard earned money of the people and leaves them in a position of a destitute. The recent incident of the killing of Gaddafi should be produced in front of the people so that they get the vigor to fight against what is wrong. They should be realized that the country is their home and they are responsible for the wellbeing of their state. Thus they should take all the responsibilities from electing their own leader, the political parties and even assembly. They should know that with the operation of only one leader the country can never reach the zenith of success. Even if some procedures of democratic government takes some time, still the decisions has all the chances to be accurate as not only the leader decides it but many sub leaders who are under him studies all the pros and cons and only then passes it. Therefore with conviction, if the citizens of authoritarian state are taught the importance of a democracy, then the transition from authoritarian to democracy is possible.

After a thorough discussion it is clear now that even in this world of modernization where independence is the mantra in every mind, authoritarian states still exists and still people follow it. Ivy (2008) suggested that if the citizens are provoked and taught the importance of democracy in their lives then definitely in future the government will shift to democracy.