EDIT: Before getting into a long-winded explanation (to prove I'm actually putting in the personal effort to research this myself), I'll lead with my question. What examples of autocratic democracy can be found in history, if any? I've been looking into examples of autocratic rule throughout history. And it got me wondering: if you're happy with how the autocratic ruler is running the country, then is it really so bad? It seems to me that we're all brought up to believe that anything other than democracy is inherently wrong and evil. Of course, looking more into it you find that your own country probably isn't as democratic and sacrosanct as you'd like it to believe. You'll probably find that other forms of government such as republics and monarchies aren't as bad as they've been painted either. In other words, autocracy is not a synonym for tyranny or fascism. That being said, just how good can an autocratic ruler be? Can he be democratic? Well, this proves difficult, as it may not necessarily be democratic or autocratic by pure definition, as there do seem to be some contradictions. But an autocratic ruler could allow freedom of speech, could he not? He could allow elections, at least for lower positions of government power. He could allow the people to elect representatives to have their voices more easily heard. He could still have absolute power over the military. He could choose a capitalistic approach to economics. Unfortunately this is proving to be a difficult topic to Google search. Mainly because the two ideas are thought to be irreconcilable, opposites, even enemies going back to what I said toward the beginning of this post. The closest (and only) example of this that I could find, would be Augustus' reign over Rome. I'm wondering if anybody maybe knows of other examples in history, or perhaps even today, of an autocratic democracy.
The terms are mutually exclusive. An autocracy means absolute power is held by one person. Democracy means power is held by the people. There's no way for all power to be simultaneously held by one person and by all people. I think you're blurring the practical, technical definitions with the moral overtones attached to those definitions. Possibly you're looking for something along the lines of a benevolent dictatorship?
True (and I would certainly go with "benevolent dictatorship" - or even "philosopher king" here.) But the OP might be thinking of certain systems which ape democratic processes, but necessarily limit the outcome in some way - e.g. a Chinese one-party system, where the voters get a choice of candidates, but they are all vetted and put forward by the same party hierarchy.
Good point, we need at least three dimensions to consider... the moral dimension (whether the government is "good" or "evil"); the technical component (how an omnipotent, unbiased outsider would classify the government); and the propaganda component (how the government presents itself, either in terms of morals or technical issues). Probably more dimensions, too. But... more than my original two, for sure.
Almost any European country in the latter half of the nineteenth century? Thailand? Classical Athens or Rome? It's hard to understand how this is a difficult question.
I suppose you could have an election to fill the position of autocrat after the old one dies. I doubt this system would be very stable, though.
Are you thinking constitutional monarchy? No, not for Classical Athens or Rome... Can you explain what you mean, and what the characteristics of an autocratic democracy are?
And I think there's more to the idea of "democracy" than being able to vote once per generation. I mean, an absolute democracy is a pretty theoretical concept and most governments we classify as democracies are far from absolute. But...
I'm not sure I'd call any of these "autocratic". The monarchies you mentioned usually had some degree of limitations on the monarch's power.
I think that you're equating "democracy" with freedom and civil rights. Sure, an autocracy could give citizens day-to-day freedom and civil rights. But that still doesn't make that system a democracy.
I'm just trying to find a way to reconcile the two terms. "Autocrat" implies a ruler with absolute power, so much of anything legally limiting their power (things we'd expect in a democracy) makes them by definition not an autocrat.
I'm not, or I would have included modern-day Britain. I interpreted the term to mean a quasi-democratic society, where the executive holds the majority (or a large minority) of the power but is still restricted by legislature.
And no concerns about how the executive becomes the executive? Like, elected or not? I think a society could have a lot of power in the executive branch and still be a democracy, as long as the executive branch is elected by the people.
I can't tell if you're just being shallowly glib or if you're actually trying to engage and not doing a good job of it. I guess either way I'm not too interested, so... okay. Carry on.
The definition of a democracy is selection by the majority. This can be the selection of the executive, or it can be the selection of the legislature/judiciary that balances the executive. The term "autocratic democracy" doesn't specify anything beyond autocratic and democratic systems existing in tandem.
The definition of democracy is that supreme power is vested in the people. The definition of an autocracy is that supreme power is vested in one person. A system in which some power is vested in the people and some power is vested in one person is neither a democracy nor an autocracy.
Oh, okay. I read "it's hard to understand how this is a difficult question" as something other than genuine engagement, but if you're trying to be respectful now, carry on. I'm out.
Hey, I appreciate the replies all! @BayView I do like the terms "philosopher king" and "benevolent dictator", which should serve to round-out my research. @ChickenFreak Yes, the reason why I equated civil rights and freedoms with democracy, is because it seems rather difficult to have a true democracy (or even republic) without them. Maybe a couple exceptions, but in general the trend seems to be that the more freedoms and civil rights you take away, the less democratic the society. It's not a universal law, rather just an observation that I think most would agree with. I rather expected this to sort of happen, because even I myself had to start bending and breaking the definition of both to try and get them to work. This of course results in pseudo versions of both autocracy and democracy. @Mouthwash Thank-you for the suggestions! I will definitely have to take a look at classical Athens, and of course Rome. It would appear that Augustus is not the only good example, as there is also Marcus Aurelius (who is also referred to as a philosopher king). Again, thank-you for the replies everybody! If people feel they have more to add, then they're most welcome to do so. Trying to theoretically figure out how such a society could actually function is pretty fun and interesting in my opinion. Although I do concur that while autocracy and democracy could certainly be melded together, both would lose some of their core, "pure" (by definition) values and characteristics.
Actually, no, classical Athens was pretty democratic if I recall correctly. Sorry. I was thinking of ancient Greek city-states in general, where the line between tyranny and democracy was quite often blurred.
A true Democracy can be a tyrannical majority or it can be a benevolent majority. A true Autocracy can be a tyrannical rule or a benevolent rule. That's also true of Republics, Monarchies... any form of government can go in one direction or another, and whether the results are good or bad will be based on the perspective or biases of the person judging them. So, @Foxxx , there are a lot of concepts in your original post you can blend at will. What you can't blend is Autocracy with Democracy. Absolute power is either held by the population or the single ruler. If the power is not ABSOLUTE to the people, it's not a Democracy. If the power is not ABSOLUTE to a single individual, it's not an Autocracy.
But an Autocratic ruler could strictly control who the people vote for, or nullify the vote completely. That's the point of Autocracy. So if the power of the people is superficial, and the point of a Democracy is absolute power of the people... there is no Democracy, there's the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. If you're going to try and combine the two my question becomes: is the democratic process without power Democracy?
