Authoritarian States Practice Questions
Answer the following essay questions with reference to Cuba and, where applicable, another
authoritarian state of your choice.
Successful economic policies were essential for the maintenance of power by authoritarian
leaders. With reference to one authoritarian leader, to what extent do you agree with this
statement?
“There are few individuals in the twentieth century who had a more profound impact on a
single country than Fidel Castro had in Cuba,” commented by Robert Pastor, former national
security adviser to President Jimmy Carter in the 1970s. Fidel Castro had established a “New
Cuba” and achieved the consolidation of his authoritarian regime after the overthrown of Batista’s
dictatorship in 1958. While his maintenance of power could be largely attributed to his successful
economic policies, which helped to promote general support for Castro and the leadership, other
measures of social control and repression were also essential for his maintenance of power.
Fidel Castro’s economic policies were successful in the aspect that they significantly
improved the livelihoods of the Cuban peasants, which resulted in the genuine support toward
Castro’s leadership from general masses. Prior to Castro’s victory, the Cuban economy has
suffered from unfavourable trade conditions with the USA. Unemployment in Cuba had been high
before the revolution, especially in the impoverished rural areas. The work for many landless
peasants, which was only sporadically available, had been back-breaking and poorly rewarded.
Castro’s economic policies changed this and peasants found themselves paid more fairly and given
more rights and shorter working hours. The Rectification Campaign of 1986-1987 was launched to
move Cuba back to a more centrally planned economy and stamp out of the corruption within the
system. Agrarian reforms were implemented to provide economic benefits for the vast majority of
the Cuban population. Major foreign industries were nationalized, rents were drastically reduced,
and large landholdings were broken into smaller units and turning them into cooperatives. While
these economic policies adversely affected the interests of wealthiest landowners, they
significantly improved the livelihoods of the Cuban peasants which occupy the majority of the
country’s population, promoting general support toward Castro’s leadership and helps the
maintenance of his power.
In addition to improving the livelihoods of the majority of Cuban population, Castro’s
economic policies were also successful by being flexible and adjustable in face of adverse
circumstances, allowing the country to endure economic challenges and retain the populace’
confidence in his leadership. Previously, Cuba had been reliant upon the USSR and Comecon for
economic development, that by 1989 approximately 80 percent of both Cuban exports and imports
came through the USSR. The collapse of the Soviet Union (1989-1991) therefore had an
enormous impact on Cuba. The worst effects of this collapse were felt in 1990 and lasted until
around 1996 but, despite the difficulties, Castro’s Cuba survived. This can be partly attributed to
the adjustments in the economic policies. With the sugar subsidies from the USSR gone, the
economy shifted to the growth in tourism-related industries. State-owned farms (which had
accounted for 75 percent of Cuba’s agricultural land) were downsized and agricultural
cooperatives like UBPCs were created. Despite his protestations to the contrary, Castro was forced
to reintroduce capitalist elements to the Cuban economy. By the mid-1990s Castro had agreed to
allow US dollars to be used as currency—as they already were in the newly thriving black market
economy. Farmers’ markets (banned since 1986) were reintroduced and private ownerships was
allowed to a certain degree. Through these flexible readjustments of economic policies, Castro as
capable of sustaining the country throughout the crisis, retaining people’ confidence in his
leadership thus maintaining his regime.
Nevertheless, although essential, successful economic policies were not the only factor which
contributed to Castro’s maintenance of power. His social control and repression measures, through
the harsh punishments of former Batista administration’s members, banning of political parties
and dictatorial style were also essential. Castro’s rapid, public punishment of criminals ensured
that the Cuban Revolution did not descent into the chaos of violent reprisals and vigilantism. The
televised trials and executions sent a clear message to the Cuban pubic: the new government
would uphold the law and they would dispense justice. Thus, the Cuban Revolution did not suffer
from the anarchy, public disorder and random violence of other sudden changes of government,
such as after the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia of the liberation of France from the Nazis. The
degree of repression employed by Castro also prevent foreign intervention from overthrowing
him. For example, in August 1959, he had narrowly foiled a coup organized by the Dominican
Republic and was sure that there would be many more US-sponsored attempted coups in the near
future. This was a correct choice because President Eisenhower had already (in 1959) authorized
the CIA to plan and implement Operation Mongoose (also known as the Cuban Project) to remove
Castro from power by any means necessary, short of a full-scale US military invasion. Thus,
Castro’s reliance on a certain degree of security apparatus that other dictatorships have used was
necessary in order to maintain his power.
In conclusion, the successful economic policies adopted by Fidel Castro helped him garnered
general popular support from the majority of Cuban population, assisting his maintenance of
power. However, economic policies were not the only contributors to his consolidation of power,
since the certain degree of repression and doctorial measures also prevented foreign interventions
and overthrown of Castro’s regime.
To what extent was the success of an authoritarian leader due to their control of the media?
Adolf Hitler once said, the state “must exercise strict control over the press, for it influence
on the people is by far the strongest and the most penetrating”. To achieve this end, he established
the Reich Ministry of Enlightenment and Propaganda, with Joseph Goebbels appointed its leading
minister. The control of media is a significant contributor to the success of Hitler as an
authoritarian leader, through which he consolidated the ideology of national socialism and cult of
personality, as well as eliminated any threatening political ideologies. Nevertheless, additional to
control of the media, other measures such as the abolition of trade unions and political parties
were also crucial for the success for Hitler’s maintenance of authoritarian regime.
“We want to have a press which cooperates with the Government just as the Government
wants to cooperate with the press”, Goebbels made apparent the role of the press in Nazi Germany
during a speech delivered in March 1933. To promote the Nazi Weltanschauung among the
population, the state established a monopoly over all media, eliminated materials hostile to the
spirit of National Socialism (“alien elements”), and promoted a cult of the Fuhrer to bind the
people together. Various methods were used to achieve this goal, but radio and broadcasting were
utilized most frequently and heavily, as Gobbles admitted, “I consider the radio to be the most
modern and the most crucial instruments that exist for influencing the masses.” Thus, cheap
radios—the Volksempfanger or “people’s receiver”—were mass-produced, ensuring that the
message of National Socialism was broadcast to the population. By late 1939 an estimated 70
percent of German households possessed a radio that was deliberately manufactures with a limited
range of reception to block foreign broadcasts. The media often had the deification of Hitler as its
main message. His “infallibility” and “omniscience” were repeatedly portrayed and emphasized in
the broadcast, consolidating the sentiment of “Fuhrer worship” among the population. Reporters
and editors had to prove their absolute loyalty and submission to Hitler’s regime, thus state would
control the ownership, authorship and content of whatever is being created and communicated to
the public. Through the control of media, Hitler perpetuates the ideology of National Socialism
and his cult of personality in the society, reinforcing his authoritarian regime.
In addition to promoting the Nazi ideology and Hitler’s cult of personality, the control of
media was also aimed at repressing any potentially threatening ideologies and eliminating any
alternative views. Socialist and communist newspapers were banned early on in the regime (as
were the parties themselves) and in 1934 the Reich Press Law imposed “racially clean”
journalism. Jewish and liberal journalists were sacked and Jewish owners of newspapers such as
the Ullstein publishing house were forced to sell out to the Eher Verlag, the official Nazi
publishing house. Other than the press and newspapers, literature was also strictly controlled by
the Hitler state. Department VII of Goebbels Ministry was entrusted with controlling the output of
literature available to the population. Rigorous control over publishing houses, authors, bookshops
and libraries ensured that only writing acceptable to the Nazi party was printed and available for
public consumption. In May 10, 1933, there was a radical Book Burning event, where Nazi
university student organizations, professors, and librarians assemble long lists of books they
considered to be nonaligned with the Nazi ideology and ideals and burned them all. That night,
more than 25,000 books are burned. Through the control of media, Hitler successfully repressed
any alternative ideologies that would threaten his absolute power over the German people.
Although the control of media plays significant role in Hitler’s consolidation of authoritarian
regime, other oppressive measures such as the abolition of trade unions and political parties were
also crucial in this process. Since the labour movement was associated with Leftist influence, and
the Nazis sought to break the trade unions and the power of organized labour. In May 1933 such
organizations were abolished and replaced by a Nazi-run organization known as the German
Labour Front (DAF). Collective bargaining and the power to strike were forbidden as Hitler
announced his plan to re-establish “social peace in the world of labour” and replace “discord” with
“harmony” in the interests of the “people’s community”. Other than abolishing trade unions, by
July 1933, all political parties except the NSDAP were abolished. The BVP voluntarily dissolved
with the prospect of the signing of a Concordat between the National Socialist State and the
Vatican. Similarly, the DVP and the NDVP bowed to pressure or the promise of guarantees of job
security in the new Germany and accepted self-dissolution. Through the removal of trade unions
and other political parties, Hitler and his NSDAP effectively established an authoritarian regime.
In conclusion, the control of media plays a significant role in helping Hitler to successfully
consolidate his power, as it helped perpetuate the ideology of National Socialism and cult of
personality among the German public. However, the control of media is also not the only
contributor to Hitler’s maintenance of power. Other measures such as the abolition of trade unions
and political parties were also crucial in ensuring Hitler’s absolute control over the country.
Compare and contrast the use of propaganda and the media in the rise to power of two
authoritarian leaders, each chosen from a different region.
The 20th century saw the emergence of many authoritarian leaders, among them are Benito
Mussolini in Italy (1922) and Adolf Hitler in Germany (1933), establishing fascist totalitarian
states. The use of propaganda and the media was essential to both authoritarian leaders’ rise to
power, particularly including the glorification of coups and creation of the cult of personality.
However, while Nazi Germany was able to develop an effective propaganda machine, fascist
Italy’s attempt was comparably inefficient and feeble.
Both Mussolini and Hitler utilized the glorification of coups as propaganda during their rise
to power, creating mythology surrounding their leadership and thus consolidating their rule. For
Mussolini, this was primarily achieved through the March on Rome, an insurrection by which he
successfully came to power in late October 1922. Mussolini himself did not participate in the
march, but waited in Milan and left the work to his subordinates, later arrived in Rome having
already accepted the position of prime minister. However, the March on Rome eventually become
one of the great founding myths of the fascist movement, with a glorification far exceeding its
ramshackle reality, presented by the fascist propaganda as the moment of the fascist “revolution”.
Hitler made a similar attempt in the Beerhall Putsch of 1923, imitating Mussolini’s March on
Rome. Although the putsch was unsuccessful, it served as an opportunity for Hitler’s propaganda.
The putsch brought Hitler to the attention of the German nation for the first time, generating frontpage headlines in newspapers around the world. His arrest was followed by a 24-day trial, which
was widely publicised and provided him a platform to express his nationalist sentiments to the
nation. Similar to Mussolini’s Mach on Rome, Hitler also later glorified this event to create
founding mythologies. The 16 fallen insurgents were regarded as the first “blood martyrs” of the
Nazi Party and were remembered by Hitler in the foreword of Mein Kampf. Commemoration
events were put in place after Hitler came to power, further exploiting the event as propaganda and
legitimizing his fascist regime.
Another similarity between Mussolini and Hitler’s use of propaganda is their deliberate
creation of the cult of personality. To increase the prestige and popularity of Mussolini and the
fascists, they connected themselves to the earlier greatness of ancient Rome and its emperors.
From 1926, Mussolini was increasingly spoken of as a new Caesar. To achieve this, he
concentrated on building up and projecting his own image, dedicating much attention to
promoting good publicity. A press office was set up to ensure that photographs and newspaper
articles projected a positive image of Mussolini and his activities. He was portrayed as youthful,
energetic and an expert in a wide range of specialist areas and pursuits. He even gave instructions
to the press on how he should be reported. Similarly, Hitler utilises propaganda to achieve the
deification of himself, cultivating the cult of personality. His “infallibility” and “omniscience”
were repeatedly alluded to in feature films, weekly newsreels shown in cinemas and in officially
approved literature. Such “Fuhrer worship” was also present in the annual “public rituals”
introduced by the regime to mark significant dates in the development of the Hitler states. For
example, 30 January was set to remember the appointment of Hitler as Chancellor; 20 April to
celebrate Hitler’s birthday, and 9 November to commemorate those who died in the 1923 Beerhall
Putsch. These occasions reminded the people and the party to be utterly faithful under Hitler’s
leadership, establishing the cult of personality and consolidating his authoritarian regime.
Nevertheless, while Hitler was able to establish an efficient propaganda machine in Nazi
Germany, Mussolini failed to accomplish so. The Propaganda Ministry led by Joseph Goebbel was
able to implement the complete and systematic perpetuation of Nazi ideology through radio
broadcast, literature, music and film, imposing absolute repression upon alternative or opposing
expressions. Socialist and communist newspapers were banned early on in the regime (as were the
parties themselves) and in 1934 the Reich Press Law imposed “racially clean” journalism. Jewish
and liberal journalists were sacked and Jewish owners of newspapers such as the Ullstein
publishing house were forced to sell out to the Eher Verlag, the official Nazi publishing house.
Other than the press and newspapers, literature was also strictly controlled by the Hitler state.
Department VII of Goebbels Ministry was entrusted with controlling the output of literature
available to the population. Unlike the efficient propaganda machine developed by Joseph
Goebbels in Nazi Germany, propaganda in fascist Italy was marked by bureaucratic inefficiency.
Mussolini’s creation of a fascist propaganda machine was a gradual process. Significantly—and
again unlike Nazi Germany—a number of non-fascist newspapers and radio broadcasts were
allowed to continue, including those produced by the Vatican.
In conclusion, both Mussolini and Hitler utilized propaganda during their rise to power,
specifically through the glorification of coup events and cultivation of the cult of personality.
However, while Nazi Germany was able to develop an effective propaganda machine, fascist
Italy’s attempt was comparably inefficient and feeble.
Discuss the importance of the use of force in consolidating an authoritarian leader's
maintenance of power.
Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party established a totalitarian state in Germany since 1933, with
all opposition eliminated and aspects of civilian lives being controlled meticulously, committing
the worst crimes in humanity. The use of force, or violence and intimidation, was important in
consolidating Hitler’s maintenance of power as an authoritarian leader. Through the use of force,
he subordinated political rivalries, eliminated internal threats, and controlled the public sentiments
to establish absolute power over the state.
The use of force was important for Hitler to gain authority and subordinate political rivalries
during his path of establishing dictatorship. He created paramilitary organizations, including the
Sturmabteilung/SA and later the Schutzstaffel/SS, as the primary tool for the execution of violence
and intimidation. For example, before the election of March 1933, the NSDAP only pertained 43.9
percent of seats in the Reichstag, still not an absolute majority as the majority of German voters
were unwilling to deliver an outright majority for the Nazis. However, through the use of force,
the NSDAP was able to eliminate their political rivalries. Street violence preceded and followed
the March elections as Nazi SA members attacked KPD and SPD paramilitary organizations,
Reichstag deputies and office. According to Rudolf Diels, head of the Gestapo in Prussia, 500-700
political murders of Nazi opponents were carried out between March and October 1933. Another
example is the use of intimidatory tactics to gain the two-thirds majority to pass the Enabling Bill,
as SA and the SS had been on a month-long campaign of violence to scare or imprison other
opponents to the party. They had placed many in the first concentration camp, Dachau, which
opened just a few days before the vote on the 20 March 1933. Through the use of force,
intimidation and violence, Hitler and his Nazi Party was able to subordinate rivalry political
parties and gain authority over the German political scene, paving the way for establishing a
totalitarian state.
In addition to subordinating outside political rivalries, the use of force was also important for
eliminating internal threats to Hitler’s power. This was best illustrated by the Night of Long
Knives, also known as the Rohm Putsch. This was a purge of the Sturmabteilung (SA) leadership
and other internal political opponents from 30 June to 2 July 1934. After Hitler utilized the
paramilitary SA to destroy the communist movement, he became increasingly concerned about
SA’s violent and uncontrollable behaviour. Ernst Rohm—the leader of SA—wanted to become the
leader of the merged SA and army, while openly condemning Hitler’s compliance with the elite.
Combined with the rumours spread by Himmler and Goring regarding Rohm’s planning of
“second revolution” to redistribute wealth, Hitler initiated by purge carried out primarily by the SS
and the Gestapo. Rohm and over 150 others were murdered and hundreds were arrested. The
Night of the Long Knives confirmed Hitler’s authority, as he justified his actions to Reichstag by
exclaiming that he alone had acted on behalf of the German people at a time of emergency, thus
gaining credit for “heroic actions”. Reichstag passively made the murder acceptable by having no
consequential actions. The Night thus helped Hitler and the Nazi Party to consolidate absolute
power in Germany by removing their political opposition.
Furthermore, the use of force was essential for Hitler to maintain his political status quo
through repression, specifically achieved through the secret state police called Gestapo (Geheime
Staatspolizei). The Gestapo’s mission was to “investigate and combat all attempts to threaten the
state”, which encompassed a wide variety of behaviours. These behaviours included everything
from organized political opposition to individual critical remarks about the Nazis. For example, a
December 1934 law made it illegal to criticize the Nazi Party or the Nazi regime. Telling a joke
about Hitler could be categorized as a “malicious attack against the state or the Party”. It could
then result in an arrest by the Gestapo, trial before a special court, and even imprisonment in a
concentration camp. The Gestapo was infamous for the ruthless ways it carried out interrogations.
Gestapo officers regularly used intimidation, and psychological and physical torture. The constant
surveillance, arbitrary searches, interrogations and punishments by the Gestapo made the German
public fearful of showing any sign of resistance against the Nazi regime, thus consolidating
Hitler’s authoritarian rule.
In conclusion, the use of force was important for Hitler to gain authority and subordinate
political rivalries during his path of establishing dictatorship, to eliminate internal threats and
oppositions to establish absolute power, and finally to suppress any potential resistance and civil
unrest in the German society.
Compare and contrast the impact on religious groups of the policies of two authoritarian
states, each chosen from a different region.
The establishment of authoritarian regimes often has significant impacts on the religious
groups in society. The commencement of communist rule in Russia in 1917 and Nazism in
Germany since 1933 both brought irreversible consequences to the existing religion and religious
communities in the countries. However, while Soviet Union pursued the complete eradication of
religious influences to establish an atheist state, Nazi Germany chose to transform the traditional
religion to comply with the party’s political ideology and thus support their authoritarian regime.
Soviet Union as an authoritarian state aimed to achieve the complete removal of religious
influences within the country, in order to realize the goal of communism. As Karl Marx declared
in The Communist Manifesto, “Communism begins where atheism begins”. Joseph Stalin, as the
second leader of the Soviet Union, tried to enforce militant atheism on the republic. According to
Stalin, it was possible and desirable to eradicate “traditional national consciousness,” in order to
“create a society based on the universal principles of socialism.” The “Godless Five-Year Plan”,
launched in 1928, gave local cells of the anti-religious organization, League of Militant Atheists,
new tools to disestablish religion. Churches were closed and stripped of their property as well as
any educational or welfare activities that went beyond simple liturgy. All the while, the nominally
independent League of Militant Atheists disseminated anti-religious publications, organized
lectures and demonstrations, and helped atheist propaganda work its way into almost every
element of socialist life. From 1928 until World War II, when some restrictions were relaxed, the
totalitarian dictator shuttered churches, synagogues and mosques and ordered the killings and
imprisonment of thousands of religious leaders in an effort to eliminate even the concept of God.
On the other hand, instead of eradicating religious groups and influences rapidly and
completely like Soviet Union, Nazi Germany decided to destroy the Church gradually. The goal
for removing traditional Christianity and its institutions was not to achieve atheism either, but to
make National Socialism the absolute dominant ideology over the German population. With the
cooperation of State officials, an Alliance of German Faith, or German Church, was established,
headed by J.W. Hauer. This Alliance has succeeded by means of the platform and printing press in
setting up a powerful machinery of propaganda, seeking to gather all citizens into the fold of the
new church and to wage continuous warfare in its behalf. In addition to the Alliance, or German
Church, there exists in Germany the Neo-Pagan Alliance, devoted to the same ends as the former
and differing on in this: it plans to revive the cult of ancient German gods, especially of Wodan or
Odin. Furthermore, there was the Alliance of German Christians. Accepting in principle all the
ideas of Racism, it nevertheless tries to reconcile the Christian religion with Racism by
eliminating from the Christian doctrine everything not in accord therewith. Through these
measures, Hitler and the Nazi Party were able to transform the Church into one preaching a
specifically German national religion in the service of the Nazi state—a Christianity stripped of
the Old Testament (described as a Jewish book and therefore unfit for study by Aryans),
consolidating the authoritarian regime.
In conclusion, while both authoritarian states of Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union and Adolf
Hitler’s Nazi Germany caused significant impacts on the religious groups, the intention and
consequences were different. Whereas the goal of Soviet Union was to achieve an atheist state
completely stripped off religion, Nazi Germany’s goal was to consolidate the ideology of National
Socialism and thus sought to transform existing religious institutions to serve their own ends.