Totalitarianism: A Governance of Control and Assumed Unity, Essay Example

Research Plan

Government and the process of governance play a great impact on how the current society of modern human civilization is being fully guided towards progress. Living under systematic governance intends to create a specific sense of social stability which sociologists observe to be strongly affective on how societies around the world thrive to survive the challenges of modern living. Considerably, such an instance creates a form of indication on why a particular nation is more progressive compared to another[1]. True, the aspect of governance that a society receives affect the people’s system of living directly, thus creating a form of distinction on why a particular country incurs faster progress than others do.
The aspect of totalitarian government has long been assumed as an effective form of governance especially on the part of those who are aiming to create an improved system of development for their nation. The doubt on whether or not a totalitarian government hurts the principles of human rights and how the reception of the nation regarding such option of development actually creates an environment ready for conditional progress has consistently attracted sociologists in debating over the application of the said government.

Given the different situations that countries are facing at present, two among the most common governments that are seen to have an influence on the current lifestyle of people across the nations are that of democracy and that of the principles of an authoritarian government. Totalitarianism is somewhat distinctly connected with the application of an authoritarian government. However, it is described that totalitarian government is most often than not considered as a more controlling form of ruling the people, their daily activities and their personal concerns. There are instances that even though the authoritarian government and the totalitarian approach to governance are closely related, historians and sociologists strongly impose the separation of the two because there are some specific points that make these approaches of governance specifically different from each other.

In the research that is being proposed to be handled, a condition of defining totalitarian form of government shall be presented. Along with this approach, the different elements that consistently insist on the definition of the totalitarian government as a form of social control [2]shall also be discussed. Differentiating the totalitarian government with the authoritarian approach serves as an essential point of definition that is to be presented in this research. Through this approach, it is expected that the condition of perceiving the reality behind the application of a totalitarian form of governance in a country would be better understood.

To make the description of a totalitarian government, this research shall utilize actual examples between China and Northern Korea to make a distinction between the totalitarian and authoritarian form of governance. It is assumed that with such approach to the topic, the clarity of understanding totalitarianism as a form of governance that directs a nation towards what the administration desires shall be better given attention to. Undergoing such process will make the information presented in the research more reliable and timely for the current situations the modern society is dealing with at present.

Topic Discussion

The manner by which a nation is governed often creates a distinctive indication on how the communities within the said country would thrive in front of the demanding challenges of the modern society. The creation of the different forms of governance through the pages of human history specifically create a distinctive way in defining the desire of humans to progress according to the guidance of a systematic form of guidance on the basic aspects of their life as a member of a country. Administrators are often assumed as the ones to be in control. They are often considered as the ‘father’ of a nation who needs to treat their people as if they were family as he directs them towards the path that would not only benefit them as individuals but would also create a distinctive condition of progress for the whole country (Martin, 111). This is however the more idealistic way of describing the primary aspects of politics and the role it plays in each nation and the people that lives in it.

In reality, politics instantiates the manner by which the people who are in position intend to create rules that would assure them of their national success, even when sometimes, such approaches would involve sacrifices, drastic adjustments and particular situations that might bring about great disadvantages to the supposed ‘minor’ population in the communities. During the era of World Wars, it could be analyzed how such instance in governance and politics specifically created a great impact on the lives of the common people.

Italian fascists of the 1920’s specifically imposed that the process of totalitarian government and its application intend to create an anti-communist system that would make it easier for a nation to progress further given that it ‘motivates’ the people to follow through ‘willfully’ on what the government demands from the people in the form of a law[3]. A separate form of governance from the principles implicated through democratic leadership, totalitarianism insists on the power of the administrator/s to direct the life of the people. Understandably, in this case, it is understood that the people are not given as much choice as they would be given in a democratic form of government especially on matters that involve the political structure of the country.

However, it could be agreed upon that whatever the administrators decide upon would have a direct impact on the people. This is the reason why when it comes to instantiating the right form of governance, it has become a common culture to measure how such form of leadership affects the people of a nation since they are the ones considered as the primary subjects of such different forms of direction. In the form of totalitarian government though, the people remain as the followers, giving them lesser chance to choose for themselves, the government specifically directs them towards the path that they are supposed to tread upon especially on matters that could affect the national economy, the political stability in the nation and other matters that could influence national concerns.

‘A form of protection for the people’ (Laqueur, 131), this is how sociologist and philosopher Giovanni Amendola describes what totalitarian governance is about. He imposes that ‘the more choices the people have, the more chaos there would be’ (Laqueur, 133). Realizing that humans are prone to making decisions that are relatively impulsive especially when facing particular situations that affect their personal perception on matters that affect their lives, a totalitarian government is expected to reduce possible chaos that could be resulted from such form of decision making. Making specific rules that would direct people how they should realize the importance of education, something that would direct them as to what specific employments they are supposed to embrace is what the aspect of totalitarian government is primarily focused upon. It views the people as “national assets”. Utilizing them based on what they could do for the country is an important factor that makes a totalitarian government directive.

When it comes to the application of an authoritarian governance, the people are given the chance to decide for their own even though there is already a structured form of social system that has been established for them to follow. Although given the chance to choose, they could not do away so much from the established system.  This is not the case with the application of a totalitarian government. The direction instantiated by the government is considered solid thus cannot be altered by the people. Considerations are least given way. Making alterations to the law takes a lot of time due to the strict consolidation of the said element in respect of what the administrators want out of the long-time established law for the people to follow. In instances when the administrator/s want to impose changes on the system, particular procedures that would insist on the agreement between all leaders involved is essential. The people however would have no voice regarding these changes. In this case, the administrator/s are given absolute power to make amendments to the law once approved by the whole committee of leaders in a particular country.

The rights of the people are specifically respected but are not necessarily recognized fully especially if the said rights would cause for national commotion. Distinctively displaying control over the living conditions of the people is a part of the totalitarian leadership. Observe how the Nazi era imposes on such situation of applying a totalitarian form of rule. The death of thousands has been allowed under the law due to the sole desire of Hitler to raise the Arianne society[4]. As of now, one specific example of a nation that applies the totalitarian rule is that of the North Korean region. Specifically governed by one party alone, the nation’s politics presents it to be under a republican state of governance. Nevertheless, the directive condition of ruling that the administrators impose on their people is much more related to a totalitarian approach. Defining both education and employment for their people depending on their social class, this nation is able to seriously give attention to the desire of strengthening their military force (Cordesman, 340). In this case, there is no question that the people are directed fully by the government to fulfill a political desire that is believed as the nation’s protection from outside elements that might ruin their nation’s unity over one goal which is to remain intact as a society of the Korean nation distinguishably identified to belong to the Korean people[5]. Unlike Korea though, the People’s Republic of China is also believed to be under a directive form of governance, although it does not fully control ‘everything’ that the people decide to live upon (Cordesman, 311). Notably, China embraces more of an authoritative system of politics that directly controls specific elements of the society that is most often than not related to the country’s overall welfare. Nevertheless, the people are still given the chance to manifest a form of personal decision that might affect their personal lives. This is the reason why China is more open to the world compared to that of North Korea[6].

From the discussion and the comparative example provided in this presentation, it could be analyzed that the totalitarian form of governance is dedicated to the desire of the administrators as it sets aside what the people want. Viewing the people or the society as a form of national commodity[7], they are given less regard in consideration with how their rights are recognized by the government. In this form of political system, the administrators are ones holding the steering wheel and the people can do nothing much but to follow through the orders of the ‘captain’; understandably, such approach is considered to be undergone as an option of protecting the people and their welfare as a nation.

References

Martin, Bradley K. (2004). Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader: North Korea and the Kim Dynasty. New York City, New York: Thomas Dunne Books. p. 111.

Cordesman, Anthony H.  (2011). The Korean Military Balance. Center for Strategic & International Studies.

Laqueur, Walter. (1987). The Fate of the Revolution, New York: Scribner. p.131.

Linz, Juan. (2000). Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Lynne Rienner Publication.

Kershaw, Ian. (2000). The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation.  London: Arnold; New York page 25.

Stewart, Richard W., ed. (2005). “The Korean War, 1950–1953”. American Military History, Volume 2. United States Army Center of Military History. CMH Pub 30-22.

[1]Laqueur, Walter. (1987). The Fate of the Revolution, New York: Scribner. p.131.

[2]Stewart, Richard W., ed. (2005). “The Korean War, 1950–1953”. American Military History, Volume 2. United States Army Center of Military History. CMH Pub 30-22.

[3]Laqueur, Walter. (1987). The Fate of the Revolution, New York: Scribner. p.131.

[4]Kershaw, Ian. (2000). The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation.  London: Arnold; New York page 25.

[5]Cordesman, Anthony H.  (2011). The Korean Military Balance. Center for Strategic & International Studies.

[6]Martin, Bradley K. (2004). Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader: North Korea and the Kim Dynasty. New York City, New York: Thomas Dunne Books. p. 111.

[7]Linz, Juan. (2000). Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Lynne Rienner Publication.