Now that the literature on the topic has been through an exhaustive analysis, the authoritarianism of these regimes requires a comparison. Expansion of the similarities and the differences between Mubarak and Pinochet will provide a deeper understanding of the flexibility of autocracy. Egypt and Chile are an ocean apart, literally and figuratively. The regions differ greatly in nearly all facets such as origins, geography, language, social beliefs, and countless more. Examining a Middle Eastern authoritarianism and a Latin American authoritarianism by means of an impartial lens will wield the answer to the following question: Does authoritarianism transcend the vast discrepancies between these two regions; therefore, proclaiming these two regimes
…show more content…
The coercive apparatus is usually made up of the armed forces and the police force. The amount of reliance on the two institutions is decided by the autocrat. Both, Egypt and Chile, were police states to the core. The National Intelligence Directorate (DINA) of Chile and the police force in Egypt, were both created to defend from opposition. The Marxists/socialists in Chile were ruthlessly hunted, as was the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. On the surface these were the main objectives of the forces, but both presidents soon started to use them as their own form of power. It was rumored, but never confirmed, that Pinochet used DINA in the many political assassinations of his reign. Under full control of the president, DINA never faced consequences. The focus of the Egyptian police force after the Muslim Brotherhood renounced violence was to eliminate any inkling of revolution. To do this the force would make examples out of innocent citizens. The words “Ihana and mahana”, are the feelings of shame that the citizens feel when they or someone they knew was publically beaten or humiliated. The size of these forces were incredibly large, due in part to the fact that the leaders knew that the general public was not happy with the way the country was being run. The salary of the officers was not the only expenditure, as their exceptional loyalty was not free either. Both of these presidents were able to create economies that benefitted not only themselves, but their elite class as well. A seemingly endless supply of resources was thrown at the police force, because Mubarak and Pinochet both knew very well that they needed something to keep the natives from coming together against them. The police in an authoritarian government is the embodiment of the violent and oppressive nature that this political style always entails. An almost identical reason for
The coercive apparatus is usually made up of the armed forces and the police force. The amount of reliance on the two institutions is decided by the autocrat. Both, Egypt and Chile, were police states to the core. The National Intelligence Directorate (DINA) of Chile and the police force in Egypt, were both created to defend from opposition. The Marxists/socialists in Chile were ruthlessly hunted, as was the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. On the surface these were the main objectives of the forces, but both presidents soon started to use them as their own form of power. It was rumored, but never confirmed, that Pinochet used DINA in the many political assassinations of his reign. Under full control of the president, DINA never faced consequences. The focus of the Egyptian police force after the Muslim Brotherhood renounced violence was to eliminate any inkling of revolution. To do this the force would make examples out of innocent citizens. The words “Ihana and mahana”, are the feelings of shame that the citizens feel when they or someone they knew was publically beaten or humiliated. The size of these forces were incredibly large, due in part to the fact that the leaders knew that the general public was not happy with the way the country was being run. The salary of the officers was not the only expenditure, as their exceptional loyalty was not free either. Both of these presidents were able to create economies that benefitted not only themselves, but their elite class as well. A seemingly endless supply of resources was thrown at the police force, because Mubarak and Pinochet both knew very well that they needed something to keep the natives from coming together against them. The police in an authoritarian government is the embodiment of the violent and oppressive nature that this political style always entails. An almost identical reason for