A comparative analysis of the impact of authoritarian and democratic political systems on addressing global challenges

Borys Dziundziuk

A comparative analysis of the impact of authoritarian and democratic political systems on addressing global challenges

Borys Dziundziuk

Abstract

This study aimed to identify the differences in approaches and effectiveness of various political systems in re- sponding to global challenges, as well as to assess their ability to provide long-term sustainable solutions. This research analysed how different political systems – authoritarian and democratic – influence countries’ responses to large-scale challenges such as economic, environmental, health, technological, and social crises. The article employed comparative analysis and case studies to identify key differences between authoritarian and democratic systems, particularly in the context of their ability to mobilise resources, implement innovations, ensure public support, and implement sustainable policy solutions. The primary focus was analysing responses to economic crises, environmental threats including climate change, global health, and reactions to rapid technological changes. The research findings demonstrated that author- itarian regimes can rapidly mobilise resources and make centralised decisions, which is advantageous in urgent crisis situations, but often suffer from a lack of flexibility and long-term public support. Conversely, democracies are character- ised by greater transparency and public participation in decision-making, which fosters more sustainable and acceptable solutions, although it may slow down the response process in times of crisis. The article examined examples of countries such as the USA, Sweden, Norway, Germany, South Korea, China, Iran, and others to analyse the effectiveness of different political systems in addressing global challenges. The results of this study can be used by governments and policymak- ers to develop more effective strategies for responding to global challenges, taking into account the characteristics of different political systems. Furthermore, these findings can serve as a valuable resource for international organisations and researchers in the fields of politics and governance seeking to understand the impact of political structures on the effectiveness of addressing global problems

Keywords

political governance; global stability; environmental security; healthcare; technology; adaptation

References

[1] Anagnostakis, D. (2021). The European Union-United States cybersecurity relationship: A transatlantic functional cooperation. Journal of Cyber Policy, 6(2), 243-261. doi: 10.1080/23738871.2021.1916975.

[2] Bedford, S. (2021). The 2020 presidential election in Belarus: Erosion of authoritarian stability and re-politicization of society. Nationalities Papers, 49(5), 808-819. doi: 10.1017/nps.2021.33.

[3] Bertelsen, O. (2022). Secrecy and the disinformation campaign surrounding Chernobyl. International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, 35(2), 292-317. doi: 10.1080/08850607.2021.2018262.

[4] Chen, С., Frey, C.B., & Presidente, G. (2023). Disease and democracy: Political regimes and countries responsiveness to COVID-19. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 212, 290-299. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2023.04.034.

[5] Clean Air Act. (1963, December). Retrieved from https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/The%20 Clean%20Air%20Act%20of%201963.pdf.

[6] Clean Water Act. (1972, October). Retrieved from https://www.boem.gov/environment/environmental-assessment/clean-water-act-cwa.

[7] Curato, N., & Fossati, D. (2020). Authoritarian innovations: Crafting support for a less democratic Southeast Asia. Democratization, 27(6), 1006-1020. doi: 10.1080/13510347.2020.1777985.

[8] Dai, B., Amarteifio, E.N.A., Kyere, F., & Kwasi Sampene, A. (2024). Examining the dynamics between economic development, tourism, renewable energy and life expectancy in the Nordic economies. Environmental Research, 252, article number 118900. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2024.118900.

[9] Dedeke, A., & Masterson, K. (2019). Contrasting cybersecurity implementation frameworks (CIF) from three countries. Information and Computer Security, 27(3), 373-392. doi: 10.1108/ICS-10-2018-0122.

[10] Flinders, M. (2021). Democracy and the politics of coronavirus: Trust, blame and understanding. Parliamentary Affairs, 74(2), 483-502. doi: 10.1093/pa/gsaa013.

[11] Greitens, S.C. (2020). Surveillance, security, and liberal democracy in the post-COVID world. International Organization, 74(1), 169-190. doi: 10.1017/S0020818320000417.

[12] Grzymala-Busse, А. (2020). Consequences of authoritarian party exit and reinvention for democratic competition. Comparative Political Studies, 53(10-11), 1704-1737. doi: 10.1177/0010414019897683.

[13] He, A.J., & Tang, V.F.Y. (2021). Integration of health services for the elderly in Asia: A scoping review of Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia. Health Policy, 125(3), 351-362. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.12.020.

[14] Helms, L. (2022). Political oppositions in democratic and authoritarian regimes: A state-of-the-field (s) review. Government and Opposition, 58(2), 391-414. doi: 10.1017/gov.2022.25.

[15] Huang, J., & Tsai, K.S. (2022). Securing authoritarian capitalism in the digital age: The political economy of surveillance in China. The China Journal, 88. doi: 10.1086/720144.

[16] James, T.S., & Alihodzic, S. (2020). When is it democratic to postpone an election? Elections during natural disasters, COVID-19, and emergency situations. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, 19(3). doi: 10.1089/ elj.2020.0642.

[17] Kharazi, A.A. (2021). Authoritarian surveillance: A corona test. Surveillance and Society, 19(1). doi: 10.24908/ ss.v19i1.14545.

[18] König, P.D., & Wenzelburger, G. (2020). Opportunity for renewal or disruptive force? How artificial intelligence alters democratic politics. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3), article number 101489. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2020.101489.

[19] Kye, B., & Hwang, S.-J. (2020). Social trust in the midst of pandemic crisis: Implications from COVID-19 of South Korea. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 68, article number 100523. doi: 10.1016/j.rssm.2020.100523.

[20] Lavrič, M., & Bieber, F. (2021). Shifts in support for authoritarianism and democracy in the Western Balkans. Problems of Post-Communism, 68(1), 17-26. doi: 10.1080/10758216.2020.1757468.

[21] Lund, H., Thellufsen, J.Z., Sorknæs, P., Kany, M.S., & Skov, I.R. (2022). Smart energy Denmark. A consistent and detailed strategy for a fully decarbonized society. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 168, article number 112777. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2022.112777.

[22] Malka, А., Lelkes, Y., Bakker, B.N., & Spivack, E. (2022). Who is open to authoritarian governance within western democracies? Perspectives on Politics, 20(3), 808-827. doi: 10.1017/S1537592720002091.

[23] Mauk, М. (2020). Citizen support for democratic and autocratic regimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[24] Merkel, W., & Lührmann, A. (2021). Resilience of democracies: Responses to illiberal and authoritarian challenges. Democratization, 28(5), 869-884. doi: 10.1080/13510347.2021.1928081.

[25] Nathan, A.J. (2020). The puzzle of authoritarian legitimacy. Journal of Democracy, 31(1).

[26] Nicolaisena, F.S. (2023). The politicization of mobility infrastructures in Vietnam – the Hanoi metro project at the nexus of urban development, fragmented mobilities, and national security. Advances in Southeast Asian Studies, 16(2), 209-231. doi: 10.14764/10.ASEAS-0101.

[27] Nützenadel, A. (2021). The financial crisis of 2008 – experience, memory, history. Journal of Modern European History, 19(1), 3-7. doi: 10.1177/1611894420973590.

[28] Repucci, S., & Slipowitz, A. (2022). The global expansion of authoritarian rule. Retrieved from https://freedomhouse. org/sites/default/files/2022-03/FITW_World_2022_digital_abridged_FINAL.pdf.

[29] Roccato, M., Cavazza, N., Colloca, P., & Russo, S. (2020). A democratic emergency after a health emergency? Exposure to COVID-19, perceived economic threat and support for anti-democratic political systems. Social Science Quarterly, 101(6), 2193-2202. doi: 10.1111/ssqu.12865.

[30] Sajadi, H., & Hartley, K. (2022). COVID-19 pandemic response in Iran: A dynamic perspective on policy capacity. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 15(2), 228-249. doi: 10.1080/17516234.2021.1930682.

[31] Sallai, D., & Schnyder, G. (2021). What is “authoritarian” about authoritarian capitalism? The dual erosion of the private-public divide in state-dominated business systems. Business & Society, 60(6), 1312-1348. doi: 10.1177/0007650319898475.

[32] Schimpfössl, E. (2024). Oligarch moralities of wealth: The Russian case. East European Politics and Societies, 38(1), 283-302. doi: 10.1177/08883254221139826.

[33] Schmidthuber, L., Ingrams, A., & Hilgers, D. (2020). Government openness and public trust: The mediating role of democratic capacity. Public Administration Review, 81(1), 91-109. doi: 10.1111/puar.13298.

[34] Sinkkonen, E. (2021). Dynamic dictators: Improving the research agenda on autocratization and authoritarian resilience. Democratization, 28(6), 1172-1190. doi: 10.1080/13510347.2021.1903881.

[35] Sinpeng, A. (2020). Digital media, political authoritarianism, and Internet controls in Southeast Asia. Media, Culture & Society, 42(1), 25-39. doi: 10.1177/0163443719884052.

[36] Slantchev, B.L., & Matush, K.S. (2020). The authoritarian wager: Political action and the sudden collapse of repression. Comparative Political Studies, 53(2), 214-252. doi: 10.1177/0010414019843564.

[37] Tudor, M., & Slater, D. (2020). Nationalism, authoritarianism, and democracy: Historical lessons from South and Southeast Asia. Perspectives on Politics, 19(3), 706-722. doi: 10.1017/S153759272000078X.

[38] Welzel, C. (2021). Why the future is democratic. Journal of Democracy, 32(2).

[39] Wiebrecht, F. (2021). Between elites and opposition: Legislatures’ strength in authoritarian regimes. Democratization, 28(6), 1075-1094. doi: 10.1080/13510347.2021.1881487.

[40] Williamson, S., & Magaloni, B. (2020). Legislatures and policy making in authoritarian regimes. Comparative Political Studies, 53(9), 1525-1543. doi: 10.1177/0010414020912288.

[41] Willis, R. (2020). Too hot to handle?: The democratic challenge of climate change. Bristol: Policy Press.

[42] Willis, R., Curato, N., & Smith, G. (2022). Deliberative democracy and the climate crisis. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews, 13(2), article number e759. doi: 10.1002/wcc.759.

[43] Wu, D., Rockett, I.R.H., Yang, T., Wang, M., & Jiao, C. (2021). Perceived beliefs, uncertainty, and behavioral responses during the COVID-19 outbreak in China: Findings from a convenience sample. American Journal of Health Promotion, 35(7), 977-983. doi: 10.1177/08901171211004249.

[44] Wu, S., & Han, H. (2022). Energy transition, intensity growth, and policy evolution: Evidence from rural China. Energy Economics, 105, article number 105746. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105746.

[45] Zürn, M. (2022). How non-majoritarian institutions make silent majorities vocal: A political explanation of authoritarian populism. Perspectives on Politics, 20(3), 788-807. doi: 10.1017/S1537592721001043.

Suggested citation

Dziundziuk, B. (2024). A comparative analysis of the impact of authoritarian and democratic political systems on addressing global challenges. Foreign Affairs, 34(6), 47-56. https://doi.org/10.59214/ua.fa/6.2024.47