censored or, indeed, physically eliminated. Elections can be held, but
under a ‘rigged’ electoral system.
The constitutional basis of such autocratic regimes is quite
variable. In Latin America there is often theoretically a written con-
stitution which the president simply overrides or ignores as con-
venient. In Africa an original independence constitution based on that
of France or of Westminster has more frequently been amended in
the name of nationalism towards an explicit adoption of a single-
party model. In some cases what was a military regime has ostensibly
been civilianised with the original military dictator creating a civilian
government party to support him. Examples include Colonel Nasser
in Egypt, Colonel al-Gadhafi in Libya and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. A
few regimes are more original in their form such as that of the former
‘Emperor’ Bokassa of the Central African Empire/Republic.
A probably more significant difference between such regimes is the
basis of the political support for the regime. As we have seen, tradi-
tionally Latin American authoritarian regimes have been supported
by landowners, the army and the Church. Regimes in Africa and the
Middle East may represent the successors of a coalition of nationalist
‘intellectuals’ (i.e. a Western-educated minority) who replaced the
colonial administrative elite and in some cases enriched themselves
and their families through businesses benefiting from state
patronage. In Haiti the Duvalier regime was supported by a private
gangster army – the Tonton Macoutes.
Perhaps related to the question of the social support for the regime
are questions of the degree of collegiality within the regime and its
stability. To the extent that an autocratic regime is built upon one
more or less charismatic leader who ruthlessly builds up a personal
machine based upon patronage, terror and/or personal loyalty, it is
likely to be unstable in the long run. The question of succession is
clearly a difficult one in such cases, although, as with presidents
Duvalier and Kim Il-sung (North Korea), the child of the dead leader
may be adopted by the elements that supported the father. Where the
regime is based upon a dominant coalition of social forces, it may
have a wider division of power and greater stability. The best example
of this is probably that of Mexico whose PRI (Partido Revolucionari
Institucional) dominated Mexico for most of the twentieth century
(until 1997). The PRI clung strongly to the principle that no president
should serve more than one six-year term so that no faction within it
STATES 149