@article{20.500.12766/750,
year = {2025},
month = {5},
url = {https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12766/750},
abstract = {Para designar algunas formas autoritarias de gobierno, así como a
sus líderes y estrategias, se han propuesto categorías híbridas, como se ha hecho
para el socialismo del siglo XXI venezolano. Estas definiciones híbridas son ambiguas,
asignan características democráticas y autoritarias al mismo modelo. El sistema
democrático es por su naturaleza contra autoritario, y el autoritarismo es
esencialmente antidemocrático. Dada la especificidad funcional que debe corresponder
a cualquier definición, el uso oportunista de elementos democráticos por
parte del autoritarismo no autoriza a calificarlo como parcialmente democrático
o semidemocrático. Los modelos autoritarios no practican, ni siquiera levemente,
fórmulas competitivas genuinamente democráticas. La participación electoral del
autoritarismo es oportunista, sus líderes políticos compiten electoralmente ocasionalmente
para promover su presencia y retórica en la arena política, ocultando
su verdadera naturaleza autoritaria contraria a la alternancia política democrática.
También es históricamente posible que la democracia pueda derivar hacia el
autoritarismo cuando presenta déficits severos, creando un ambiente favorable al
autoritarismo. Las nociones de democracia autoritaria y autoritarismo democrático
no son congruentes. El elemento opresivo del autoritarismo, abierto o velado, que
tarde o temprano despliega para su permanencia, es incongruente con la noción
de democracia e incompatible con un modelo que promueve la libertad política.},
abstract = {To designate some authoritarian forms of government, as well as their
leaders and strategies, hybrid categories have been proposed, as has been done
for the socialism of the Venezuelan XXI century. These ambiguous hybrid definitions
assign democratic and authoritarian characteristics to the same model. The
democratic system is, by its nature, counter-authoritarian, and authoritarianism is
essentially anti-democratic. Given the functional specificity that must correspond
to any definition, the opportunistic use of democratic elements by authoritarianism
does not authorize it to qualify as partially democratic or semi-democratic.
Authoritarian models do not practice, even slightly, genuinely democratic
competitive formulas. Authoritarian electoral participation is opportunistic; its
political leaders occasionally compete electorally to promote their presence and rhetoric in the political arena, concealing their true authoritarian nature contrary
to democratic political alternation. It is also historically possible that democracy
could divert towards authoritarianism when it has severe deficits, creating a
suitable environment for authoritarianism. The notions of authoritarian democracy
and democratic authoritarianism are not congruent. The oppressive element of
authoritarianism, open or veiled, which sooner or later it deploys for its permanence,
is incongruent with the notion of democracy and incompatible with a model that
promotes political freedom.},
publisher = {Colex},
title = {Democracia y autoritarismo. Ambigüedad conceptual},
doi = {10.69592/3020-8378-N2-ABRIL-2025-ART-6},
journal = {Anuario Iberoamericano de Buen Gobierno y Calidad},
keywords = {Autoritarismo competitivo},
keywords = {Autoritarismo semidemocrático},
keywords = {Democracia autoritaria},
keywords = {Autoritarismo democrático},
keywords = {Democracia},
keywords = {Autoritarismo},
keywords = {Democracia iliberal},
keywords = {Competitive authoritarianism},
keywords = {Authoritarianism semi-democratic},
keywords = {Democratic authoritarianism},
keywords = {Authoritarian democracy},
keywords = {Democracy},
keywords = {Authoritarianism},
keywords = {Illiberal democracy},
author = {Briceño León, Humberto},
}