Authoritarianism and totalitarianism are distinct, but related, types of rule. Authoritarian politics is the exact reverse of the ideals of liberalism and libertarianism, in that it emphasizes the importance of authority and power above freedom, and the rule of law above personal decisions. What marks an authoritarian government or ruler as totalitarian, however, is when the state seeks total authority over society. Totalitarian regimes, such as dictators, military juntas and theocracies, place the authority of the state above the rights of the individual, using their power to dictate and control all aspects of people’s public and private lives, including their attitudes, values and beliefs, and are intolerant of any opposition. All political ideologies, both left- and right-wing fall somewhere on the scale between authoritarianism and libertarianism, but few are genuinely totalitarian. Totalitarianism very often involves a strongly nationalistic or religious element, sometimes with very racist attitudes, and frequently leads to conflict with other nations.
Although the term ‘tyrant’ originally had a neutral meaning in Ancient Greece, the behaviour of many absolute rulers rapidly gave it negative connotations. Tyrants were seen as ruling in their own interest, rather than that of their people, and often using oppressive force to maintain their authority and overcome opposition, so that today we describe such authoritarian methods as tyrannical. Totalitarian states are by definition authoritarian, and many are tyrannical in enforcing their rule, using police or military forces to the extent that they may be called ‘police states’. Although definitions of what constitutes a police state are somewhat subjective, examples include Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and its satellites, Augusto Pinochet’s Chile, and North Korea. State control of every aspect of society in such totalitarian states requires a strict enforcement of draconian laws, including restrictions on mobility and communications, and severe penalties for law-breaking. This is administered by the police, and may also involve the use of the secret police and intelligence services.
Within a totalitarian state, because individual rights and freedoms are restricted or even absent, the government wields considerable political power and is often concentrated to the authority of a small number of people, or even a single person, commonly referred to as a dictator. The majority of authoritarian regimes have charismatic leaders who have either spearheaded the regime’s rise to power, seized the leadership or emerged from the ranks of the ruling elite. They are often seen as dictators although they may simply be the leaders or figureheads of an authoritarian government. It is not always the case that all totalitarian regimes have gained power by force: a number of dictators were initially elected and subsequently extended their powers. Also, although dictators and totalitarian governments are generally at the extreme left or right of the political spectrum, they may have moved to this position from a more moderate stance. They are characterized more by their authoritarian methods of governance than their actual socioeconomic policies.
Charlie Chaplin lampooned European fascist leaders in his 1940 film The Great Dictator.
A distinguishing feature of all totalitarian governments is their intolerance of most forms of opposition. This is manifest in attitudes to free speech and freedom of the press and media, but most obvious in countries that have adopted some type of single-party system of government. This can be the effective quashing of opposition, while maintaining a facade of multiparty democracy, by a dominant party that controls and manipulates the electoral system or intimidates its opponents by force. Or it can be an outright one-party state, legitimized by its constitution, which outlaws all but the ruling party. Totalitarian regimes are generally strongly nationalistic, and the one-party state is most often justified on the grounds of national unity, or to represent the interest of the majority population. There are also ideological justifications, such as the Marxist belief that political parties other than the communist party represent the interests of capitalism and are inimical to the interests of the state, or the religious justification that a particular party or faction has a divine right to rule.
Fascism emerged in Italy during the First World War at a time when Italian nationalists were seeking a comprehensive ideology to match their dream of a dynamic, modern state as the heir to Ancient Rome. Benito Mussolini, the charismatic founder and leader of the fascist movement, had been a prominent socialist, and rejected the materialism and injustice of liberal capitalism, but found communism incompatible with his extreme nationalist leanings. Instead, he proposed a corporatist economic system with employers and the workforce united in production for the nation, and a modernization of Italian industry as a foundation for the building of an Italian empire. In place of class struggle and party political conflict, he advocated ‘Strength through Unity’, as exemplified by the fasces, the bundle of twigs of the fascist emblem. The National Fascist Party seized power in Italy following the March to Rome in 1922, and Mussolini led the ultranationalist dictatorship until he was ousted in 1943. Fascism is now outlawed by the Italian constitution.
Nazism also had its roots in the First World War and the nationalist politics of a charismatic leader, Adolf Hitler. Nazism developed quite separately from Italian fascism, evolving from the German Workers’ Party, which later became the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP), from which the word ‘Nazi’ is derived. Hitler shifted the NSDAP towards ultranationalism and a rejection of both communism and capitalism, which he denounced as Jewish conspiracies.
A year after a failed coup, he led the party to legitimate power in 1923, gaining support for the Nazi ideology of expansionist nationalism based on the idea of an Aryan ‘master race’. Officially a revolutionary socialist movement, Nazism under Hitler became increasingly overtly right-wing and authoritarian, and the nationalism more racist. Today Nazism is synonymous with extreme right-wing authoritarianism, coupled with extreme ethnic nationalism, characterized by notions of racial supremacy and antisemitism.
In Marxist theory, socialism is seen as a transitional stage between capitalism and the establishment of true communism. Sometimes described as ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’, this stage was interpreted by some as implying a totalitarian rule to consolidate the system against opposition. In Soviet Russia, Joseph Stalin used state violence to intimidate and eradicate opposition, installing himself as the dictatorial leader of a totalitarian communist state. Similarly, Mao Zedong (pictured) implemented Marxist/Leninist policies with a greater degree of nationalism to establish a Chinese totalitarian state, and Fidel Castro established a one-party socialist state in Cuba. North Korea is arguably one of the most repressive of all communist totalitarian states. On gaining independence from the Soviet Union in 1948, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was modelled on Stalin’s authoritarian communism. The dictatorship is now dynastic, with the title of Supreme Leader passing from Kim Il-sung to his son Kim Jong-il and then his grandson Kim Jong-un.
Before the Enlightenment, and with the exception of the democracies of the Ancient Greeks and Romans, almost every absolute ruler could be described as more or less totalitarian. Many used religious ‘divine right’ as justification for their authority, which in Europe meant power was under the control of the Catholic church.
Nowadays, however, this kind of religious totalitarianism is restricted to Islam, and the very few authoritarian Islamic states enforcing a strict adherence to sharia. These include Arabic nations, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and Sudan, Afghanistan when under the control of the Taliban, and debatably Iran. What characterizes these regimes as totalitarian is the absence of democratic processes, such as political parties, and the rigorous control over people’s private as well as public life, but especially the outlawing of apostasy – turning away from the faith – which can be interpreted as outlawing all infidels and so criminalizing opposition.
While some totalitarian regimes have been democratically elected and become gradually more authoritarian, others have seized power after a revolution or civil war has overthrown the previous government or ruler. Some have seized power from within, in a coup d’état. Unlike a revolution, which is characterized by a ‘bottom-up’ popular movement to remove an existing power, a coup, sometimes also known as a putsch, is when a faction within the establishment illegally seizes power and forces a ‘top-down’ change of regime, imposed by a minority of insiders on the majority population.
In order to retain power, the usurpers almost invariably introduce authoritarian laws and take forcible measures to prevent resistance. As with most totalitarian regimes, they are usually led by a charismatic figure such as Napoleon (opposite), who assumes the role of dictator, or even emperor, and more often than not as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, to intimidate any potential opposition.
It is always wise to have military backing to enforce unpopular authoritarian control and many dictators have courted the armed forces both before and during their rule. Some, such as Idi Amin Dada and Francisco Franco, had a military background themselves, which they stressed by being frequently seen in uniform, and even civilian dictators have accorded themselves a spurious military rank. But the military themselves do sometimes come to power in a coup d’état, particularly if they have lost confidence in their civilian rulers. The military leaders then form a government known as a junta, taking over control of the state, as happened under the colonels in Greece between 1967–74 and Chile in 1973–90. A military junta is by nature authoritarian and hierarchical, and once in power difficult to remove. Juntas often come to power at times of national crisis or conflict, such as during a civil war, justifying their takeover as politically neutral and acting in the national interest, but this may be a pretext for an ambitious faction within the forces to seize dictatorial power.
