By most accounts, there is no such thing as an authoritarian democracy, since, by definition, democracies and authoritarian regimes are dichotomous.
authoritarian
Tha Tang's strength came from a system of equal land allotments to the male population. A tax on the allotments was the Tang's greatest source of income.The early Tang monarchs were good rulers overall. Rulers are not withing democracy goverments.
No Chad is not a democracy but dominant-party presidential republic.
It started as a monarchy, became an oligarchy, then a tyranny, then limited democracy, then an oligarchy, then a radical democracy, then a limited democracy.
The caudillos were leaders of an authoritarian tradition, whereby some citizens are above the law which is a pillar of democracy.
strict, dictatorial people have no say or freedom in how, government rules, opposite of democracy.
Yes. A representational democracy is a form of republic. "Democracy" means "rule by the people". "Republic" means "rule by elected officials". A representative democracy is both.
Authoritarianism and democracy are not fundamentally opposed to one another, it is thus definitely possible for democracies to possess strong authoritarian elements, for both feature a form of submission to authority.
Currently, Iraq is a Parliamentary Democracy that is slowly moving towards an Illiberal Democracy, but it is not a dictatorship. Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq was an Authoritarian State.
A democratic government is not an authoritarian form of governance. In a democracy, power is vested in the people, who exercise it directly or through elected representatives. This system typically emphasizes individual rights, freedom of expression, and fair elections, contrasting sharply with authoritarian regimes that concentrate power and limit civil liberties.
revolutionary and authoritarian regimes and resistance to european Imperialism, interanl political in european.;
Russia is considered to be an illiberal democracy or an authoritarian republic. This means that while there are elections for political leaders, they are more of a joke than a serious political contest between competing political perspectives.