Authors: Nohlen
Summary: In about 1200 words the entry distinguishes authoritative regimes from democratic and totalitarian ones, and develops a finer typology of seven types of authoritative regimes with historical examples. Explicitly, the entry does not analyze the policy output and the raison d'etre of authoritative regimes. Three characteristics of authoritative regimes are highlighted in order to distinguishes them from other forms of political organization. Limited pluralism separates authoritative regimes from democracies, while different levels of political participation are possible. The depolitization of the public, furthermore, has proven to be functional in many cases, since extensive mobilization of one interest group could threaten the overall limited access to power. While totalitarian regimes are built on codified and specific ideologies, the entry highlights that authoritative regimes in comparison only rely on mentalities. These are described as less specific and non-codified. Based on these three criteria, limited pluralism, depolitization of the public, and mentalities instead of ideologies, the entry develops seven ideal-type forms of authoritative regimes. These are: bureaucratic-military, authoritative-corporatist, post-democratic mobilizing, post-colonial mobilizing, race and ethnic based, pre-or incomplete totalitarian, and post-totalitarian authoritative regimes. The entry briefly discusses historical examples for each of the seven categories.