The argue that the reason for a country

The State is also always above all citizens; its existence and preservation is all that matters and any violations of civil liberties is inescapable in the pursuit of State veneration.The state is often controlled by a small minority, and that minority creates an impression of societal power. The ruling minority “must and should govern” as they are best suited for it historically, academically, and by leadership so they are not elected by the people, even if elections are held. They pass the rule around to each other as if entrusted to them by nature, simultaneously deceiving the people into thinking their best interest is in the heart of the State.O’donnell & Schmitter (2013) argue that the reason for a country to turn to the authoritarian regime is not entirely known, but is usually accompanied by a big crisis (eg. The great depression and the rise of the Nazis; 9/11 and the consequent invasions of the Middle East and invasion of citizens privacy by the NSA).  However, it’s worth mentioning that the democratisation of several authoritarian countries also happened after a major political shift.Maxwell (1997) explains that the democratisation of Portugal occurred in 1974 after a coup d’etat of a secret underground movement of federal high-ranking officers. The campaign proved successful in ushering in a new period of equality to supersede military rule. The bloodless campaign was done quickly and by imprisoning all those in power, with equally powerful men replacing those whom they opposed. They aimed to reunite the Portuguese nations, restore civil liberties and catered towards patriotism, and achieved democracy by having an honest nationalistic intention.ConclusionAutocracy can last in some authoritarian regimes even if they were eliminated in some, and one can see there’s an important factor in play and that factor is the difference in the very fabric of the creation of each individual regime. While undermined in theory; scholastically and rationally that factor plays a large role in the outcome of every attempt to overthrow an autocracy, and one that is often unpredictable.For example, the very minority that rules is the minority that have the power to swing the outcome of a system’s stability. Machiavelli in his book, the Prince, implies that the leaders either satisfy the small elites around them or neglect them, and these elites can sway the outcome if they join the opposition (Machiavelli, 1532, 1998). But it could also be the resistance of the majority, as demonstrated in Poland under the Soviet rule, which is discussed below.RecommendationIt would unwise and implausible to recommend that the societies under autocracies rise and rebel, even if potentially in their favour, for a few reasons. Authoritarian regimes tend to noticeably diminish the violence against the people when they are content that the people have settled in to the routine of surrender to the regimes. The leaders relax in their command, and any mitigating incidents do result in massive waves of arrests and killings as seen in the many recurrences in the Philippines’ attempts to overthrow the many dictators that have seized powers. A strong, peaceful and steady opposition to a current authoritarian regime could yield a return or change to democratic regime, as seen in Poland. The Soviets imposed the totalitarian rule upon the people and Since historically it’s been the Poles’ nature to resist foreign intrusions and ideals, their constant resistance to the imposed system, which they did by resisting the legal contracts to religion and agriculture proposed by the Soviet army. By the end of second World War, the system was abolished which goes to show that opposition does not have to be a massive episode of confrontation but a slow deliberate resistance works the same; but as stated earlier, to promise such a thing is impossible, as nothing can be predicted due to the nature of societies.Perhaps, as a prediction, it’s worth noting that for countries receiving foreign aids for democracy are probably less to experience violence in the path of the democratisation process, especially if that country suffers from financial and social problems. Yet, they are probably the societies that are to be encouraged to rebel if they see that change is evident if interference to the regime occurs. Belgian prime minister Yves Leterme and Former Indonesian president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono warned of regimes rising from the action of introducing the shadow of democracy to an authoritarian regime without the erasure of the traces of the regime, as it births a hybrid regime that legally demonstrates the dimensions of a democracy yet bars it in practice (Zakaria, 1997).