Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
authoritarian and totalitarian regimes
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: authoritarian and totalitarian regimes
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
Liberal democracy is protecting the rights of the individual, which are generally held as sacred in the law. In contrast, authoritarianism is a dictatorship that governs order and control over personal freedom. Whereas, anti-colonialism are political movements in opposition of the growing colonial empires.
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?
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.
Between the Authoritarian government and the American democracy, there are many differences. Some are small, but you can definitely see the big differences. Most are between how the government acts to certain situations and how they treat the people of their country.
The United States of America, United Kingdom, and Russia all have different ways of controlling their country. There are three models of democracy: parliamentary, presidential and semipresidential systems (O’Neil, 2007). A presidential system represents the minority of democratic systems around the world. Parliamentary systems can be found in a majority of democracies around globally (O’Neil, 2007). Lastly, there is a semipresidential system. The semipresidential system is a hybrid between parliamentary and presidential systems that has become more widespread over the past fifty years (O’Neil, 2007). Executive, legislative, and judicial institutions can vary dramatically across democracies in their construction and degree of power. We will revise these institutions, and examine the main differences on how they can be constructed in relation to one another. This paper will compare and contrast the primary structures of the United States’ presidential system and the British parliamentary system, and glance into the political system of Russia.
Many countries have decided against having a totalitarian government system, but there still are countries that continue with running their country with authoritarianism. The Middle East persists on having an authoritarianism style government over having a democracy. Theories that prove to be true to Middle Eastern people of how a totalitarian government is better relate to economics, religion, and international involvement. People living in the Middle East want to avoid having political liberation because that can lead to a consistent and stable democratic government. Another reason keeping them from changing is that since their countries aren’t struggling economically, the citizens don’t see it necessary to elect new leaders. The countries in the Middle East region decide to continue with authoritarianism because the fear and pain is greater than the feeling of freedom.
As seen above there is quite a big difference in the way that the government is controlled in the two mentioned governmental styles. However, from what we have seen in nations so far one cannot say that one of the two systems can specifically be viewed as a superior or more liberal form of government. All one can say is that as democracy is becoming more and more popular around the world more and more nations are choosing to form their government according to one of the two above-mentioned ways. Both governments follow a fairly rigid system that endeavors to optimize the liberties of the people. Nations do not choose one of the two governments because it’s better but because it fits the nation’s citizens and culture better. Nowadays multiple countries even create a hybrid of the two types of governments to make it suit them the best.
A totalitarian government is one of the strictest forms of government with the least amount of freedom for the people. A totalitarian government is a mix of the military, individual leadership and the national political party. Usually the leader is a person who has a kind of charisma that makes his authority inherent and compelling. The leader defines himself as the embodiment of the nation’s will and ideal. The leaders build cults around themselves and transformed public rituals into occasions for veneration. Public rallies and parades were meant to display the strength of the leader. The military would function at the will of the leader and changed to meet the needs of the government. The party is always right and argument is impossible. The purpose is to unite its goals to that of the state. Representative legislative bodies were eliminated although the regimes would give the people the chance to vote as the party wished or to not vote at all so it appeared they had a choice in the government.
A dictatorship, in this case Hitler, and a party (Nazi Party: National Socialist Germans’ Workers Party NSDAP) need to control the law courts, the media, police and of course, the government. There is basically no freedom of choice and the individual who created this totalitarian government has total control over its people. In any government, there are many different aspects that it controls, and these are especially significant for totalitarian governments. First of all, totalitarian governments control the political aspect of their state, in the sense that the leader basically symbolizes the government and is able to unite its people, the government is also solely controlled by one single political party, and the state is always considered more important than the individuals. A second aspect is the social aspect, in which the totalitarian government controls all features of daily life, meaning citizens are denied their basic rights and liberties, and there is a secret police that uses terror and violence to enforce governmental policies. Finally, the economic aspect of totalitarian governments basically represents the fact that they direct the national economy and control businesses, which means that these businesses and labor in general are used to fulfill the objectives of the state.
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 ...
Propaganda is influencing the attitude of countries and nation’s communities toward some cause or position. There are two different extreme types of systems of government that use propaganda, totalitarian and democracy. In a totalitarian government, this government has power over every aspect of personal and private life. It is an extremely controlling and dictatorial type of government. On the opposite end of the spectrum is the democracy government where the people get to vote for the party they want to rule. This type of government is open and extremely permissive and allows freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
In modern history, there have been some governments, which have successfully, and others unsuccessfully carried out a totalitarian state. A totalitarian state is one in which a single ideology is existent and addresses all aspects of life and outlines means to attain the final goal, government is ran by a single mass party through which the people are mobilized to muster energy and support. In a totalitarian state, the party leadership maintains monopoly control over the governmental system, which includes the police, military,
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.
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.
By the mid-1930s, Stalin had forcibly transformed the Soviet Union into a totalitarian regime and an industrial and political power. He stood unopposed as dictator and maintained his authority over the Communist Party. Stalin would not tolerate individual creativity. He saw it as a threat to the conformity and obedience required of citizens in a totalitarian state. He ushered in a period of total social control and rule by terror, rather than constitutional government.