From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Totalitarian democracy is a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of the nation state. While its citizens are granted the right to vote, there is little if any difference in the political positions of the candidates for office, and voters accept that their vote is meaningless in any case. (Compare with Democratic Empire)
This is in part because the philosophy of totalitarian democracy is based on a top-down view, which sees an absolute and perfect political truth to which all reasonable humans ought be drawn. It is not only beyond the individual to arrive at this truth independently, it is his duty and responsibility to aid his compatriots in realizing it. Moreover, any public or private activities which do not forward this goal have no useful purpose, sap time and energy from those which do, and so must be eliminated. Thus economic and social endeavors, which tend to strengthen the collective, are seen as valuable, whereas education and religion, which tend to strengthen the individual, are seen as counterproductive.
A totalitarian democracy accepts exclusive territorial sovereignty as its right. It retains full power of expropriation and full power of imposition, ie, control over everything and everyone. Maintenance of such power requires the forceful suppression of any dissent element except that which the government permits or organizes. Liberal democrats, who see political strength as growing from the bottom up (cf: "grass roots"), reject the idea of coercion in shaping political will, but the totalitarian democratic state holds it as an ongoing imperative.
A totalitarian democratic state assumes as close to total control over the lives of its citizens as is possible, using the dual rationale of general will and majority rule. While a case might be made for the possibility of such a circumstance, it is difficult to envision a historical precedent. In fact, history seems to bear out that it is the political, economic, and military élite who define the general will and lend credence to the expression that "might makes right." George Orwell, in his novel Animal Farm, explores this contention from the perspective that "some citizens are more equal than others". Again, however, it is the imperative of achieving the overarching goal of a political nirvana which shapes the vision of the process. The general is not asked to guide the plow; should the peasant be asked to lead the troops? And to what extent is the citizen of a liberal democracy free from the manipulation of government and business in his life? There are many who have taken up arms against their own fellows because of what they perceived as inappropriate and ongoing governmental interference in their lives.
It would be wholly unproductive to consign modern governments to boxes labelled either "liberal" or "totalitarian," for most governments can be found someplace between, and most, moreover, have either subtly or dramatically shifted positions over the decades. At the beginning of the twentieth century, Western nations were almost without exception in the totalitarian democratic camp. One needs only to examine the treatment of religious and cultural minorities, the poor, and the socially outcast to see the extent to which the narrow, fast-flowing stream of political, ethnic, and cultural purity flowed through the heartlands of the great nations.
The mid-twentieth century, following WWII, saw greater ideological polarization between nations than at perhaps any other time in history. Yet the irony was, and is, that both Eastern and Western governments were faced with the same roadblocks in achieving their objectives - their own citizens. In the East, religious and intellectual repression was being met with increasing resistance, and the Dubcek Revolution of H____ was only the first in a series which ultimately led to the fall of the Soviet Empire. In the West, in the meantime, Americans were under seige by Senator Joseph McCarthy, who had made it his mission to rid the United States of Communists and Communist sympathizers, and the Viet Nam war, which would bring turmoil to American soil, was just around the corner.
At the beginning of the twenty-first century, none would deny the label of liberal democracy, and in many respects, it is a fair analysis. Nations such as Canada have an extensive social welfare network, legislated human rights standards, and governments which are more open and responsive than has traditionally been the case.
Certainly the general global trend in the latter part of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first has been to liberalization. The ability of the media to show the world the actions of misbehaving nations has resulted in a diminishing of the worst excesses of both totalitarian and liberal democracies, though wherever there are closed doors or closed borders, or wherever there are sufficient economic incentives, there is the potential for the beating, the bullet, and the bomb. This, of course, presupposes the media's willingness to assume the role of an unbiased observer (to the extent to which that is possible).
It is not unprecedented for citizens in a totalitarian democratic state, even when aware of their true powerlessness, to support their government. The National Socialist government of pre-WWII Germany had the exhuberent support of the majority of Germans, and it was not until much later, after Germany's losses began to mount, that support for Hitler began to fade. Mao Zedong was worshipped by hundreds of millions of Chinese, and his near-Godhead status ensured his economic reforms would be carried out even though they proved ruinous in the end.
One issue fundamental to both liberal and totalitarian democracy is that of freedom. While it might seem on first examination that there is no place in totalitarian democracy for freedom, and that liberal democracy is the ultimate expression of freedom, neither statement is in fact true.
Totalitarian democracy sees freedom which can be achieved only in the long term, and only through collective effort; the political goal of ultimate order and ultimate harmony will bring ultimate freedom. In addressing every aspect of the lives of its citizens, the totalitarian democratic state has the power to ensure that all material needs are met from cradle to grave, and all that is required of the citizen is to carry out his role, whatever it may be, to the best of his ability.
Liberal democracy, on the other hand, sees freedom as an immediately achievable goal, though, like totalitarian democracy, emphasizes its economic characteristics. It sees freedom as something which can be achieved by the individual, in the short term. This helps explain why freedom, to most Westerners, is having an income sufficient to provide them a leisurely lifestyle and the ability to "get away" when they want.
Yet at the beginning of a new millenium, there is a disconcerting lack of understanding of what it is to be poor and to be trapped in poverty with no hope of overcoming the economic barriers created by government and industry.
