A/71/269 32. It seems fair to say that the more authoritarian a Government is, the more excessive its control obsessions usually are. In particular, one-party systems typically conjure an allegedly seamlessly harmonious relationship between the political party and the people as a whole. Questioning that harmony is taboo, since it might ultimately lead to challenging the party monopoly itself, an outcome that authoritarian Governments try to avoid by placing any communication under strict surveillance. 33. Freedom of religion or belief rightly has been termed a “gateway” to other freedoms, including freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly and association. There can be no free religious community life without respect for those other freedoms, which are closely intertwined with the right to freedom of religion or belief itself. This is exactly what worries authoritarian Governments and often causes them to curb freedom of religion or belief. While mostly not caring much about issues of religious orthodoxy versus heterodoxy, the main interest of many authoritarian Governments is to prevent religious communities from running their own affairs independently for fear that this might in the long run erode the control of the State over society. Control obsessions may go so far as to even place the appointment of religious leaders or the “reincarnation” of certain reli gious dignitaries under tight administrative control. 34. When visiting authoritarian countries, observers are sometimes deceived by the display of religious pluralism and diversity of beliefs, which on the surface may actually exist. However, the decisive test question for many authoritarian regimes is not whether there is more than one recognized religion or whether religious minorities exist alongside the majoritarian religion or ideology. Instead, relevant test questions are whether religious communities can run their own affairs outside of tightly monitored official channels, whether community members can meet spontaneously and in self-chosen religious centres, whether religious leaders can deliver sermons or address the community without previously being submitted to censorship, whether parents are free to pass on their religious faith and rituals to the younger generation in ways they see fit, and whether the right to conscientious objection to military service is respected. 35. In a number of countries governed by authoritarian regimes, the dividing line between what is permissible and what is prohibited does not run between “orthodox” and “heterodox”, “traditional” and “non-traditional” or “national” and “foreign” religions. Rather, it runs between those communities cooperating with State agencies by remaining within predefined and closely monitored channels, on the one hand, and those wishing to keep their community life free from excessive Government control and infiltration, on the other (see A/HRC/28/66/Add.2). Government interference may even sow seeds of mistrust between and within communities and poison the relationship between followers of “loyal” communities and “independent” religious groups, thus creating a climate of suspicion, in a vicious cycle that gives law enforcement agencies an additional pretext for applying far-reaching control measures. 4. Failing and failed States 36. Massive violations of freedom of religion or belief are c urrently taking place, in particular, in countries characterized by systemic political mismanagement, such as endemic corruption, cronyism and ethnocentrism. The resulting disenchantment 16-13296 11/22