> If power stays in the same hands, the system can be very stable - and not in a good way.
I don't think it actually can be that stable. I think I see what people are getting at when they say this, but it seems to me that authoritarian governments are generally quite unstable, because power never stays in the same hands. Power always changes hands, because we are mortal. Non-authoritarian systems are built to handle this, and ensure that it happens frequently enough that the wheels stay greased. Authoritarian systems are built around ensuring that the concentrated power stays only in the hands of certain people, and this is not possible.
To put it another way, non-authoritarian governments have less variance because they are taking some (very) rough average of all the people. Authoritarian governments are much more subject to the significant variance of individuals.
Of course we don't actually have that much historical data on non-authoritarian governments.
Chavez was kind of a thug, but he was also immensely popular with the commons. The people supported him, in a lot of his goals, and he was able to have a light touch, on a lot of the authoritarian stuff.
When he stepped aside, and Maduro took over, Chavez had established what was basically a dictatorship, and Maduro took the reins.
However, Maduro does not have the base support that Chavez had, and has had to use the stick a lot more. That sort of sets up a negative feedback loop, where more stick, means unhappier people, pushing back, which needs more stick.
Even if the current GOP really does have the best interests of the people in mind, if they dismantle the checks and balances, it's highly likely that a successor will use the power badly.
> Even if the current GOP really does have the best interests of the people in mind
Note that the Chavez/Maduro distinction you drew was not about “best interests of the people in mind” but the former being immensely popular and the latter not. The current Administration, whatever intent may exist in their minds, is very much not “immensely popular”.
> it seems to me that authoritarian governments are generally quite unstable, because power never stays in the same hands.
Well, it depends, the Kims and the Chinese Communist Party have been in power for almost 80 years. We do have a lot of history of pre-democratic regimes tho, and many of those lasted longer than modern the democratic states.
I don't think it actually can be that stable. I think I see what people are getting at when they say this, but it seems to me that authoritarian governments are generally quite unstable, because power never stays in the same hands. Power always changes hands, because we are mortal. Non-authoritarian systems are built to handle this, and ensure that it happens frequently enough that the wheels stay greased. Authoritarian systems are built around ensuring that the concentrated power stays only in the hands of certain people, and this is not possible.
To put it another way, non-authoritarian governments have less variance because they are taking some (very) rough average of all the people. Authoritarian governments are much more subject to the significant variance of individuals.
Of course we don't actually have that much historical data on non-authoritarian governments.