Exploring the Differences Between Liberal Democratic, Authoritarian and Totalitarian Political Systems
Defining political systems is a difficult thing to do as no single
system is completely static, they often change dependant on things
like war and trends in regimes, such as the recent insurgence in
‘liberal democracies’ means that the classifications of systems
changes over time. The British Westminster system is considered to be
a ‘liberal democracy’ however in the Second World War there were
several powers exercised by the government which do not fit with this
type of system for example control was exercised over the media and
labour and elections were put off. These powers were only used as a
result of the emergency situation, seemingly with the support of the
masses and once the war was over the situation reverted to that of the
pre war era but this illustrate how it can be difficult to apply all
encompassing guidelines which finitely define a certain political
system. Taking this into consideration though it is still important to
have some level of classification in place so that the systems can
first of all be more easily understood and also so that they can be
assessed as to how effective they are and how they could be improved.
In order to consider the differences between three political systems:
‘liberal democratic’, ‘authoritarian’ and ‘totalitarian’ the
individual definitions must first be established then any similarities
and differences evaluated and finally the practical consequences of
these must be highlighted.
Liberal democracy is a very popular political system in modern times.
It has several defining attribute...
... middle of paper ...
...nce this change has been successfully implemented the system
would then strictly speaking no longer be a totalitarian state and
would simply be authoritarian.
In conclusion authoritarian and totalitarian systems are very similar
though they do have some fundamental differences whereas liberal
democracy is inextricably different from both. The most important
difference is the legitimacy of the power being exercised by the
government. This massively affects the stability of a nation; people
who feel they have control over the politics in their country are much
less likely to revolt.
Bibliography
Ball, AR (2000): Modern Politics & Government, London: Macmillan Press
Ltd
Hague, R (2004): Comparative Government and Politics, New York:
Palgrave Macmillan
Heywood, A (2002): Politics, New York: Palgrave
Following the beginning of the Second World War, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany and Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union would start what would become two of the worst genocides in world history. These totalitarian governments would “welcome” people all across Europe into a new domain. A domain in which they would learn, in the utmost tragic manner, the astonishing capabilities that mankind possesses. Nazis and Soviets gradually acquired the ability to wipe millions of people from the face of the Earth. Throughout the war they would continue to kill millions of people, from both their home country and Europe. This was an effort to rid the Earth of people seen as unfit to live in their ideal society. These atrocities often went unacknowledged and forgotten by the rest of the world, leaving little hope for those who suffered. Yet optimism was not completely dead in the hearts of the few and the strong. Reading Man is Wolf to Man: Surviving the Gulag by Janusz Bardach and Survival in Auschwitz by Primo Levi help one capture this vivid sense of resistance toward the brutality of the German concentration and Soviet work camps. Both Bardach and Levi provide a commendable account of their long nightmarish experience including the impact it had on their lives and the lives of others. The willingness to survive was what drove these two men to achieve their goals and prevent their oppressors from achieving theirs. Even after surviving the camps, their mission continued on in hopes of spreading their story and preventing any future occurrence of such tragic events. “To have endurance to survive what left millions dead and millions more shattered in spirit is heroic enough. To gather the strength from that experience for a life devoted to caring for oth...
Totalitarianism in Pre-War Europe Totalitarianism refers to a system of government and parliamentary ideology that was in many of the countries of Europe between the years 1918-1939. This period saw many ideologies being developed and put into practice, and many even blame the rise of totalitarian states and aggressive, autocratic leaders for the Second World War. Totalitarianism is often associated with regimes in which there is one leader and party unquestionably in power with no significant rivals. In a totalitarian state, the ideology of the party is often firmly indoctrinated.
A totalitarian government is place that no person should ever be forced to live in because this type of government controls almost every aspect of its citizens’ lives. The dictators controlling these kinds of government’s take away people’s basic human rights, brainwash kids into showing no loyalty towards their families, and imprison or execute all who might be a remote threat to their party. The government then controls the remaining population with the fear of being arrested by secret state police regardless if they have committed, or planned to commit, a crime. The leaders of these societies have no regard for the wellbeing of anybody but themselves, and once they come to power, it is usually too late to stop what happens next.
He then further explains the growth pattern between those eras which has led to the current ideology of liberal democracy. He believes that liberal democracy is the best ideology and that it is the final stage in human ideological development. He further suggested that human history should be viewed as a progression or battle of ideologies. With the current trend of universalization of liberal democracy and individualism, both characteristics of Western culture, he argues that Western liberal democracy has become the grand victor. He also asserts that despite the liberal democratic ideology has not completely been realized in the material world, the idea has been accepted and has triumphed over all alternate ideologies.
1984, a book by George Orwell, offers an alternate reality for what the future could have been. The concept of a totalitarian society is but a far off, if not long dead, ideal. In the past totalitarianism was not just an ideal but an actual living, breathing menace to people of the late 1940s. Totalitarian governments would go to horrific lengths in order to sustain and increase their power. In the novels 1984, by George Orwell, and Anthem, by Ayn Rand, propaganda, class distinction, and naivety are explored in fictional societies. Orwell’s and Rand’s stories are based on dystopias and the individuals of those societies who dare to stand out. George Orwell uses Winston Smith, the timidly rebellious protagonist; The Party, the ruling government; and Big Brother, the face of The Party; and Ayn Rand utilizes Martyrdom, the sacrificing of oneself; Naming, a process using words and numbers as a means of identification; and Collectivism, everyone is the same and refers to themselves as we, to illustrate how dangerous a naïve working class, spin and propaganda, and an unacknowledged class distinction can be in a society.
The domination of political control must be all encompassing and commands authority from the public and private lives of citizens to the functions of social and economic institutions in order to be distinguished as a totalitarian state. Through the study of Juan Linz, Hannah Arendt and other political philosophers, we are able to define the Soviet Union under Stalin’s control as a true totalitarian regime. The simultaneous components of the center of power surrounding Stalin and his Central Committee, a Stalinist ideology manipulated from Marxist and Leninist philosophy, and the mobilization of the population to participate in collectivization and the Five-Year Plans are parallel to Linz’s three basic characteristics a totalitarian system: a monistic centre of power, an ruling ideology and an active participation of citizens for social tasks. The terror legitimized by this ideology, the propaganda surrounding Stalin’s “personality cult”, the millions of citizens purged in the 1930’s and the constant fear of internal enemies and surveillance by both the secret police and friends and neighbours defines totalitarianism as Arendt’s “novel form of government.” A totalitarian movement reaches deep into every aspect of society with a monopolized power that attempts to control every citizen's thoughts and actions. It spawns from the myth of total unity or as Stalin describes, unity of a “living organism.” The vision of the party members and citizens must completely align with those of the great leader as they are working towards a collective future and while total immersion is expected, surveillance and terror will promise to oust any hidden dissidents. Stalin as a leader functioned ruthlessly and efficiently to develop the Soviet Union ...
Orwell's allegorical critique of Stalinism in 1984 is often used in capitalist nations as a poignant literary attack on Communism and other collectivist economic and political systems. The argument often follows the lines of "This is socialism, and as you can see, it doesn't work and just leads to oppression. We're in a nice capitalist democracy, therefore we are better off." But is that conclusion the truth?
A key component to leadership is to master skills that one already possesses. The greatest leaders in the world do not necessarily stem from the best universities or some costly academic background. One of the strongest traits a person can have is understanding what their leadership style is. When one understands his or her leadership style this can work strongly to one 's advantage. The goal is to garner the best results with the least amount of effort whenever possible therefore many particulars exist which can add to this equation and understanding one’s personal leadership style is a great place to start.
In this essay, I will be discussing Liberalism and Socialism, what exactly they entail, and how they were and are still used in societies today. Liberalism is defined as a political orientation that favors social progress by reform and by changing laws rather than by revolution. Socialism is defined as a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. While the intentions of liberalist and socialist governments are the same, what makes them different is how they believe is the best ways to obtain a prosperous and peaceful nation.
... and fascism offered bold new approaches to modern politics. These ideologies maintained that democracy was effeminate and that it wasted precious time in building consensus among citizens. Totalitarian leaders’ military style made representative government and the democratic values of the United States, France, and Great Britain appear feeble- a sign that these societies were on the decline. Totalitarianism put democracies on the defensive as they aimed to restore prosperity while still upholding individual rights and the rule of law”(Hunt & Martin, 852).
Freedom and equality are intertwined with one another. Freedom is defined as the custom of being free, political independence, and the possession of civil rights. When reflecting upon the history of the twentieth century many people all over the world were not afforded the luxury of being born with freedom or born with equal rights. In most cases, those people were often oppressed or subjugated by various forms of systematic state sponsored authoritarianism and terror. In order to receive the freedom necessary to survive and the equality required to live a happy and successful life the oppressed people had to take action. Often times the action took on various forms such as, revolts or nonviolent campaigns. Because the governments reliance on authoritarianism and terror to control their citizens, often times revolts and/or nonviolent campaigns were the consequence. Therefore, any advances towards gaining freedom and equality cannot happen without some form of systematic state-sponsored authoritarianism and terror taking place first. It is no coincidence because the two phenomena are linked.
The book 1984, written by George Orwell, focuses on a man named Winston Smith. Winston lives in a society where citizens are taught to hate each other and children are told to betray their parents. Fear is a part of every person’s daily lives and as if that was not enough, citizens are kept busy for the entire day so that thoughts of rebellion or things other than their leader “Big Brother” are kept at bay. If a person is to go against the rules set forth by “Big Brother” and his party then torture or worse would be implemented. This novel, written by George Orwell clearly displays how to maintain a thriving totalitarian society.
In his book International Politics on the World Stage John T. Rourke (2008) states that governments range from the strict authoritarian at one end of the spectrum to a completely unfettered democracy at the other end (p. 78). His definition of an authoritarian style government is a “political system that allows little or no participation in decision making by individuals and groups outside the upper reaches of the government” (p. G-1). Those of us who live in a country that has a democratic government may find it difficult to understand why people who live in countries with authoritarian governments do not revolt and change their system of government, but in fact a truly democratic system of government is a relatively new concept in the age of man.
Throughout history different types of instrumental regimes have been in tact so civilizations remained structured and cohesive. As humanity advanced, governments obligingly followed. Although there have been hiccups from the ancient times to modern day, one type of government, democracy, has proven to be the most effective and adaptive. As quoted by Winston Churchill, democracy is the best form of government that has existed. This is true because the heart of democracy is reliant, dependent, and thrives on the populaces desires; which gives them the ability for maintaining the right to choose, over time it adjusts and fixes itself to engulf the prominent troubling issues, and people have the right of electing the person they deem appropriate and can denounce them once they no longer appease them. In this paper, the benefits of democracy are outlined, compared to autocratic communism, and finally the flaws of democracy are illustrated.
The foundation of the modern political system was laid in the times when the world was strangled in slavery. In those moments, enlightened minds in Greek came up with the new system that was there to remain for the next thousands of years. This system, now known as democracy, is a form of government in which supreme power is vested to the people themselves. People have the right to elect their leaders directly or indirectly through a scheme of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. A new democratic government is usually established after every 4-5 years, and it is trusted with the responsibility to cater to the needs of all the people irrespective of the fact that they voted for them or not. Although the minorities may not be very pleased with the idea of democracy, however, a democratic government is certainly the best because it establishes social equality among people, reduces the conflicts in the state to a minimum, gives the chance to vote repeatedly, and creates patriotism.