Suchergebnisse

WHEN THE NEW GOVERNMENTS OF UNDERDEVELOPED AREAS supplanted colonial rule, many were optimistic that these governments could operate within a democratic framework. But these nascent governments drifted into authoritarian forms of political life as they faced the exigencies of self-rule. Representative institutions on the Western pattern broke down and were replaced by single-party arrangements headed by charismatic leaders. This form of government, in turn, has tended to give way to bureaucratic and military regimes.

The pattern of government in Afro-Asian states has changed through the years from democracy to authoritarian systems. Writings that attempt to explain (while justifying) authoritarian regimes in the new states have prevailed in the literature about underdeveloped areas. Other writers, called revisionists, have questioned the more established position of the apologists. The revisionists' position, which has had inadequate coverage up to this time, is defended. Three lines of apology are taken in turn, & arguments raised to show that apologism is a questionable rationale. About these three lines of apologism, it is argued that: (1) opposition parties do not necessarily endanger national unity in heterogeneous societies, (2) achievement of adequate representation of a democratic type in a one-party system is dubious, & (3) peasants in these societies may well be suitable for participation in government, contrary to claims of the elites. Democracy in underdeveloped states may well be possible; at least rationales used to deny democracy are unconvincing. AA.