Authoritarian Vs. Totalitarian Regime

Political theorists seek to systematize and classify various forms of government which have existed and still exist in the contemporary world. Authoritarian and totalitarian regimes are very important subject of studies and debates. As the question is suggesting there are basic differences between these regimes that allow us to distinct them. In this essay, I will describe crucial differences which are: existence of political pluralism and ideology, rate of the government control over society, degree of active involvement of citizens in political life and powers in other areas, outside politics. In conclusion, I will discuss the complexity of this subject and I will try to describe it in a broader perspective. Definition created by Spanish

'It is evident that all areas of life within totalitarian society are immediately and directly affected, indeed controlled, by government and the particular political ideology' (J. Ben Stalvey, 1955). Totalitarians rulers have an ideology, vision on the basis of which they argue all their actions and the direction in which their policy aims. Extra, violent measures are justified because the party strives to change the entire world order, create an ideal society. This utopian vision is in totalitarian regimes officially proclaimed ideology and it can only be achieved when it starts with a revolution. Matching example is the Marxist ideology, which was used by leaders of totalitarian country- Lenin and Stalin. It had huge impact on the shape of the first totalitarian country and it also influenced later regimes. Authoritarianism does not put such a strong emphasis on ideology. According to its name, it replaces ideology with the authority of a leader or the ruling group. Ambitions of the leaders is to remain in power for the longest time as well as extension of their capabilities. Simultaneously, authoritarian rulers claim that their main purpose is improvement of the country and making it more efficient in many areas such as economy, international policy. Therefore, the justification of 'stronger state' is that the other types of states are not able to act

In totalitarianism, it is very much related to ideology as a utopian vision can be accomplished when the whole society is supporting and working for the national, 'greater' goals. The ideology should be powerful enough to activate masses and the desirable result is 'destruction of the line between state and society and emergence of 'total' politicization of society' (Juan J. Linz, 1970). Citizens should constantly and spectacularly manifest their support for the state ideology and therefore organize an extensive sphere of demonstrations, marches and rallies. In this field, the closest to achieving this was China. Mao Zeldong's cult has grown to unprecedented size. Such commitment in praising the ruler probably never has been reached on that large scale. People clearly not expressing support for the ruling party are treated as enemies of the system. Principle in every totalitarian system is the same - lack of submission to authority ideas, disobedience or disloyalty are severely punished. Authoritarian regimes differ in this field. Usually, there is absence of political mobilization. The ruling party expects society's support, but the passive attitude is tolerated. However, actions of the opposition can be punished by authoritarian governments as cruel as in totalitarian systems. This occurs in all authoritarian countries. In Belarus and Russia there have been many cases of