Assignment Five: Authoritarian Systems of Government

Read pages 357-366 to answer the following questions.
Choose the form of authoritarian government below that is most closely described in
questions 1, 2, 3, and 4.
a. monarchy
b. oligarchy
c. military dictatorship
d. one-party state
1. _____ Power is often taken through a coup d’état, and the existing government is
overthrown. Although these parties often state that they are neutral regimes
whose role is to provide interim support until political stability is established,
they are often unwilling to relinquish power unless forced.
2. _____ These parties may hold elections to legitimize their nation’s international
authority, although the will of the people is restricted by an absence of choice.
These parties often rescind prior government laws or constitutions.
3. _____ A small group becomes increasingly influential politically. Differences between
party policies may be minimal, and political longevity may rely heavily on
behind-the-scenes factions. Influence may be passed generationally.
4. _____ Reference to the will of the people may be presented in legal documents, but
allegiance must be paid to an absolute ruler, who has often come to power
through historic tradition. Influence is passed generationally through
inheritance.
Use the source below to answer question 5.
5. Which argument below would not support the perspective of President Muserini of
Uganda?
a. Multi-party systems introduce too much dissention amongst citizens, and may
lead to internal division and war.
b. Efforts to produce change in the electoral system typically bring unforeseen
consequences that may result in economic instability and ethnic volatility.
c. Single party systems stifle opposition, and therefore disregard the liberal
principle of the will of the people through illegitimate electoral processes.
d. Single-party states create a sense of national unity and community, along with
stable political and economic development.
6. Adolph Hitler used the authoritarian technique of vision to achieve his initial rise to
power through a(n)
… in Uganda, a party cannot win elections unless it finds a way of dividing the
… electorate… this is where the main problem comes up: tribalism, religion,
or regionalism becomes the basis for intense [conflict].”
http://www.the atlantic.com/issues/97dec/democ.htm
4 1
Social Studies 30-1 Module Five: Challenges to Imposing Liberalism
22
a. coup d’état.
b. democratic process.
c. opposition purge.
d. military junta.
7. Starting at the age of seven, Soviet children were required to join youth organizations,
after which came two to three years of military service. This process best illustrates
the authoritarian technique of
a. terror and force.
b. directing popular discontent.
c. indoctrination and propaganda.
d. controlled participation.
8. Which technique for maintaining power is being used if Country X uses its corrupt
police force to support the nation’s elite while targeting its poor majority?
a. Using indoctrination and propaganda.
b. Identifying scapegoats.
c. Directing popular discontent.
d. Using force and terror.
Use the source to answer question 9.
S
9. The technique of authoritarian rule shown by Source I is
a. propaganda.
b. indoctrination.
c. controlled participation.
d. direction of popular discontent.
The teachers, the intellectuals, the free thinker, must be taken out and
shot! They are training our children to be dissatisfied, to believe
capitalist propaganda, to worship mindless consumerism and financial
gain at the expense of all we hold pride in as a nation. Once they are
replaced with upright, moral men and women with character and ideals,
our nation will be unified and strengthened: we will regain our glory
and take our dominant place on the globe!
1 1 1
1
Social Studies 30-1 Module Five: Challenges to Imposing Liberalism
23
Use the source to answer question 10.
10. The technique of authoritarian rule being argued against in Source II is
a. propaganda.
b. indoctrination.
c. controlled participation.
d. direction of popular discontent.
Attached to the back of this module are two articles, all dealing with situations where a
government, whether democratic or authoritarian, failed to follow the will of its citizens.
Complete question 11 by selecting one of the two articles to form a well written response
of several paragraphs.
11. Examine the rationale behind a government deciding not to support the will of its
people, as explored through the articles below (starting on page 26). You should
briefly explain the situation in question and then address the perspectives of the
people and the government response. Determine who you feel was right in this
situation (the government or the people), and give a rationale and provide evidence to
support your position. Use the rubric on page 30 to see how you will be evaluated.
Article:_____________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
When the government calls, we must NOT gather to hear them lie to us
any longer! To feel intimidated, to feel we must sacrifice ourselves for
the good of all, to reluctantly give our support to ideas we know are
taking advantage of us. This can no longer be allowed.
1 20
Social Studies 30-1 Module Five: Challenges to Imposing Liberalism
26
Article 1
India: people versus nature or World Bank and government versus people?
In different countries of the world conflicts have arisen between the protection of national
parks and the conservation of wildlife on the one hand, and the defense of the rights of
people that live in those areas on the other. The hegemonic official model of conservation
has a vision of nature as composed by beautiful –but empty- spaces, ignoring that the
sustainable use that most local communities practice in these areas is the best guarantee
for conservation. The problem is especially important in countries with a high density of
rural population. Besides, generally the same governments which declare protected areas
open them up for mining, dams, industries, tourism, roads, and other "development"
projects. In previous issues of the Bulletin we have addressed this issue (see Bulletin 3
about India, Bulletin 8 on Thailand or Bulletin 14 on Venezuela).
Indigenous peoples living inside and in the fringes of Nagarahole National Park, also
known as Rajiv Gandhi National Park, in Karnataka State, are facing a dramatic situation.
At the same time nature and wildlife are threatened in this so called "protected area"
located in the south of India.
Nagarahole is one of the seven Protected Areas (PAs) where the World Bank is financing
US$ 68 million to the Government of India for the so-called Eco-Development Project.
The project covers a total area of 6,714 sq. km comprising other Protected Areas and
Tiger Reserves also in the states of Bihar, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Rajastan, Kerala and
West Bengal, and affecting an overall population of 48,800 tribal people. The Forest
Department and the Government of Karnataka are now trying to get the more than 6,000
indigenous people, living in 58 settlements inside the park, out of this territory. Even if
they have lived in the area for decades, the authorities now consider them illegal
occupants. The project is also affecting the 25% of the population living in the fringes of
the park, that will be eventually forbidden from entering the area. They are forbidden
from entering into the forest to gather minor forest produces, they have no rights for
cultivation, keeping domestic animals, collecting food from the forest, hunting small
game, building houses, using roads and transporting materials and most importantly, for
cultural practices and religious rituals. Both the Forest Department and the Government
of Karnataka score a long history of violations of the human and cultural rights of the
tribal people in Nagarahole.
But their action is not isolated: the World Bank is actively supporting it. Stating that
"local people, when traditional rights and access are limited by the establishment of
protected areas, often have little incentive to use natural resources in a sustainable way"
(Project Information Document, March 1996) and lending the money for the project, the
World Bank is backing a new forced displacement of the tribals from their ancestral lands
and territories, and an impoverishment of the already increasingly endangered forests.
Social Studies 30-1 Module Five: Challenges to Imposing Liberalism
27
Ironically the World Bank talks of "voluntary displacement" instead of forced
displacement.
Concerned local environmental NGOs consider that the Project's stated objective of
biodiversity conservation is just a smokescreen to pave the way for the expansion of
industrial agriculture and tree plantations in the Park, as has happened in other cases in
India and in several places of the Park itself. Nowadays only 30% of its whole area can
be considered primary forest. The rest has been devastated by logging and timber
plantations.
With the Eco-Development Project the Government of India is violating several norms
and compromises on indigenous peoples and forced resettlement, forestry policy, climate
change as well as the Human Rights conventions, and the ILO conventions 107 and 169
on indigenous peoples rights. Furthermore, the Indian Law and the National procedures
for settling indigenous rights within the National Parks have been also seriously violated.
Regarding the World Bank, it has ignored its own internal Inspection Panel procedures.
Even though the time the local communities had to prepare for the visit of the Inspection
Panel sent by the Bank in September 1998 was very short, they presented to the visitors
an Alternative People Plan to the official project. Nevertheless, their proposal was at last
completely ignored. Last but not least, these kind of projects are at odds with the latest
concepts on nature conservation and protection, that include as a capital point the
recognition of traditional knowledge and cultural skills, as well as indigenous peoples'
and local communities' rights.
Local communities, with the support of civil society organizations as the India Center for
Human Rights and Law of Bombay, the Indian People's Tribunal on Environment and
Human Rights, and CORD (Karnataka NGO supporting the tribals) will continue their
struggle against these imposed "solutions" that, in fact, are not solutions at all but a threat
to the maintenance of their livelihoods and to the conservation of nature.

Article 2
HOW BILL C-50 ENCOURAGES DISCRIMINATION
(The following article is from the June 1-15, 2008, issue of People's Voice, Canada's
leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is
credited.) This commentary by Harsha Walia is reprinted from the Vancouver Sun,
May 21, 2008
Recently the Conservative government introduced amendments to the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, buried in the Budget Implementation Bill C-50. By
making it a matter of confidence, the government forced opposition parties to accept
them or call an election.
Despite being opposed to the Bill, the Liberals chose to safeguard their own
electoral interests over the principles of justice and fairness. Immigration Minister
Diane Finley has attempted to downplay Bill C-50's significance by characterizing it
as "small changes to modernize the system"; while launching an unprecedented
multimillion dollar advertisement campaign, largely running in 'ethnic' media only
and containing very few substantive details. The ads are the first time that Citizenship
and Immigration Canada has launched an ad campaign to promote legislation that
Parliament has not yet passed.
Under the proposed changes, even if someone meets the necessary – already
stringent criteria for a visa (such as a permanent resident visa), the ministry can
arbitrarily reject the application. Humanitarian and Compassionate applications no
longer have to be examined if the applicant is outside Canada. The ministry will have
the power to decide the order in which applications are processed, regardless of when
they are filed.
The minister will also have the power to issue quotas and restrictions on the
country of origin and category of person. This modification would sanction racism
similar to the 1923 Chinese Exclusion Act or the 1911 Order in Council prohibiting
the landing of "any immigrant belonging to the Negro race."
The government says there will be no discrimination as the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms will be respected; however the Charter does not apply to potential
immigrants. Furthermore, the government says the instructions will be transparent;
however this publication will occur after the Bill comes into effect and will not be
subject to any consultation or approval process.
The government says these amendments will not give them power to intervene in
individual cases. However, the very nature of these changes is to allow for discretion
in rejecting or discarding applications that meet the existing criteria.
The government has said that the changes will not affect family reunification.

However, the bill includes the power to issue restrictions in the Family Class category
and overseas Humanitarian and Compassionate claims.
The government says these changes will not impact refugees. However, refugees
will be affected by the withdrawal of the legal right to permanent residence if they
meet the requirements of the law and the elimination of the right to have an overseas
Humanitarian and Compassionate application examined.
The main justification the government is providing for Bill C-50 is that it will fix
the backlog. However, instead of getting rid of the inexcusably long waiting list by
easing immigration bureaucratic controls, their solution is to give themselves the
power to simply kick people off the list.
An array of organizations have expressed their opposition, including the Canadian
Bar Association, Canadian Council for Refugees, Canadian Arab Federation,
Canadian Labour Congress, African Canadian Legal Clinic, Canadian HIV/AIDS
Legal Network and the Chinese Canadian National Council.
The major lobby for Bill C-50 comes from business organizations who want
immigration policy to meet labour market needs, meaning immigrants are disposable
other than their value as labour. The Conservative government says they are
"welcoming record numbers of newcomers" but the reality is that migrants are not
welcome unless they are wealthy, super-professional, or are willing to work as
temporary workers without basic legal protection. In Canada today, the number of
people admitted each year on temporary worker visas is greater than the number
admitted as permanent residents.
What motivates the Canadian government and businesses to recruit temporary
workers is that they are essentially indentured servants. A 2006 North-South Institute
study documented systemic abuse amongst migrant workers, including low wages,
long hours with no overtime pay, unsafe working conditions, discrimination, and
being tied to the "importing" employer.
Bill C-50 and the Safe Third Country Agreement creates a "Fortress Canada" by
disallowing up to 40 per cent of asylum seekers, and the North American Security and
Prosperity Partnership sanction the favouring of migrant workers as labour market
commodities while creating an increasingly hostile climate to family class
immigrants, refugees, and displaced migrants. At the same time, the Conservative
government has hypocritically and opportunistically made announcements to
acknowledge the Komagata Maru tragedy and allocated money to commemorate the
Ukrainian-Canadian internment and the Chinese Head Tax. Yet these historical
injustices are being perpetuated through racist, exploitative, and restrictive policies
such as Bill C-50.