bureaucraticauthoritarian

Bureaucratic-authoritarianism is a term used in political science to describe a mode of governance in which rule is exercised by a centralized, technocratic bureaucracy backed by coercive institutions. Regimes described as bureaucratic-authoritarian rely on professional elites within the state to manage policy, particularly in times of economic crisis or political gridlock, while limiting democratic pluralism and suppressing opposition. The emphasis is on technocratic competence and order rather than broad-based popular legitimacy.

Origins and usage

The concept was developed in the 1960s and 1970s by Guillermo O’Donnell and colleagues to explain certain Latin American regimes that emerged after military coups. In this framework, civilian or military authorities defer to bureaucratic and economic specialists to implement stability-oriented policies, often alongside the security apparatus. While many examples are Latin American, the idea has been used more broadly to analyze regimes that combine technocratic governance with coercive control and restricted political participation.

Key features

- Centralized decision-making by a professional bureaucracy and technocratic elites

- Economic stabilization or planning driven by experts

- Repression or suppression of political opposition, with limited civil liberties

- Managed or limited political pluralism, sometimes with corporatist structures

- Close ties among state, military or security forces, and business interests

Relation to other concepts

Bureaucratic-authoritarian regimes are distinct from totalitarian ones in their limited ideological mobilization and reliance on technocratic governance rather than mass ideological campaigns. They are also differentiated from more conventional authoritarian regimes by their emphasis on technocracy and bureaucratic management as the primary means of control.

Critique

The label is debated, as not all authoritarian regimes fit neatly into the category, and transitions vary widely. Nonetheless, it provides a useful lens for analyzing regimes that prioritize technocratic rule and controlled stability over broad democratic participation.