Comparing Autocracy, Totalitarianism, and Democracy: Strengths and Weaknesses

Introduction

There have been many forms of government, some more popular than others, that have been tried and tested globally throughout history. Winston Churchill, a former British prime minister once said, “… democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time…”. While democracy is arguably the best system of government that best represents the people, it still has its problems like other forms of government. Moreover, the main forms of government include autocratic and democratic systems (Dickerson et al., 2013, pp. 280). Autocratic governments can be further divided into totalitarian or authoritarian systems of government, while liberal democracies can be categorized as a capitalist liberal democracy including a parliamentary system, and a presidential system. Of course, the type of government a country implements can greatly effect citizens quality of life, freedom of choice, political involvement, etc. This essay will highlight the strengths and weaknesses of authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and various forms of liberal democracy.

Autocracies: Authoritarianism and Its Types

Some of the worst forms of government include autocracies such as authoritarianism. This type of government typically doesn’t depend on support from citizens and characteristically does not rely on elections to determine the nation’s leader ((Dickerson et al., 2013 pp. 281). Authoritarianism can further be divided into left-wing authoritarianism and right-wing authoritarianism (Dickerson et al., 2013, pp. 281). Right-wing authoritarianism characteristically has no official ideology or official doctrine for their society (Dickerson et al., 2013, pp. 282). Other key characteristics include minimal political pluralism, no political mobilization, and a leader that holds all political power and uses it at their discretion (Dickerson et al., 2013, pp. 281). As stated previously, authoritarianism can be very diverse: just one example of right-wing authoritarianism would be the ruler Francisco Franco of Spain (Dickerson et al., 2013, pp. 281). Similar to the key characteristics of right-wing authoritarianism, Francisco Franco didn’t care for political mobilization and used militarization to gain power and public approval of his leadership (“Francisco Franco: Ruler of Spain”, 2018). On the other hand, left-wing authoritarianism is quite similar to totalitarianism except to the degree that terror is used in persuading the public (Dickerson et al., 2013, pp. 285). Further, they have an official ideology and have an envisioned goal for society (Dickerson et al., 2013, pp. 285). An example of this type of autocracy is radical Islam. In this form of government, Islam has a specific ideology (the Q’uran) and have a distinct idea for a perfected society (Dickerson et al., 2013, pp. 284).

Authoritarianism, both left- and right-wing perspectives, both share similar strengths and weaknesses. Moreover, one of the overall strengths of authoritarianism is the fact that this type of government wants to protect its own society by any means necessary (Dickerson et al., 2013, pp. 281). This can be a positive characteristic as that means that the leader of the nation is self-invested in the country and will do anything to benefit society as a whole. However, this also has negative implications as well. Since an authoritarian leader is so invested in society and not individuals within it, the leader will do what he/she sees fit (Dickerson et al., 2013, pp. 286). This includes the weaknesses to this form of government including heavy state interference and minimal civilian involvement. Further, more general weaknesses of this form of government include the inability to foster another type of leader/government and the inability to challenge a current leader. These are all negative implications as this means that the citizens have no say in who their leader will be or what policies/rules they will enact. This also means that the leader doesn’t have to rely on the public’s support since they can do what they see as necessary. This has the potential to take away citizen’s human rights. In right-wing authoritarianism, some strengths include the advocation for economic growth and the diversity of the ideologies a leader may choose (Dickerson et al., 2013, pp. 281). A leader may “pick and choose” from several elements/characteristics of several ideologies, which can diversify their leading style. Advocating for economic growth is a positive thing for a society as it can help the nation to develop and provide services essential to the community. However, there are plenty of downfalls. For example, there is no great strive for achieving utopia (Dickerson et al., 2013, pp. 282). This signals that the government doesn’t care for the society’s individuals, rather just society as a whole. Similarly, these types of leaders are opposed to change, which can have a negative impact on society if they cannot keep up with our everchanging world. Yet another weakness includes the reliance on the military to enforce rules of society (Dickerson et al., 2013, pp. 282, 283). This can be similar to totalitarianism as they use coercion and fear to obtain their goals; however, authoritarianism typically only punishes those who are not obeying laws (Dickerson et al., 2013, pp. 302). Another downfall of this form of government, although they do allow independent societal organizations function without minimal interference, they will only support them if they remain politicly neutral or in support of the leader (Dickerson et al., 2013, pp. 282). This does not allow for free speech or free thought of society. On the other end of the spectrum, left-wing authoritarianism has several strengths and weaknesses as well. A positive characteristic of left-wing authoritarianism is the fact that they abide by one ideology and have a vision to transform society (Dickerson et al., 2013, pp. 284, 285). This means that they have some guiding principles as to how they rule their nation and there seems to be “an end to the means”. However, due to these sometimes-extreme ideologies and views of a perfect society, the leader may use their power in an aggressive way to obtain their goals (i.e. police terrorism (Dickerson et al., 2013, pp. 286).

Totalitarianism: Extreme Control and Terror

Another even more terrifying prospect of government is totalitarianism. This type of government is similar to left-wing authoritarianism; however, the level of terror and coercion is on a much larger scale than an authoritarian regime (Arendt, 1994, pp. 298). The overall goal for this form of government is complete control over a nation’s citizens- not only in the aspect of verbal/psychical freedom but also complete control over one’s thoughts, drives, and instincts (Arendt, 1994, pp. 304). These governments also typically isolate themselves from the outside world in order to make terror and control easier and more manageable (Arendt, 1994, pp. 303). Another characteristic of totalitarianism is the fact that only the leader him/herself is exempt from terror (Arendt, 1994, pp. 303). One very infamous example of a totalitarian regime is that of Hitler in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945 (“Week 6: Systems of Government I: Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism”, n.d.). Adolf Hitler, the leader of the Nazi party, had what Bauman describes as “the gardener’s vision”, meaning that he wanted to get rid of the “weeds” of society to perfect his own vision of an anti-Semitic world (Bauman, 2000; “Nazi Party”, 2019). At the height of the Nazi party’s relevance, Hitler used many tools of terror, even against innocent people. These tactics included concentration camps and other forms of terror. Hitler was the only one immune from his own acts of terror- even military workers under his party may be subject to killings if they were believed to be against the state (“Nazi Party”, 2019). One main strength of this type of government is the efficiency of the leader: the leader has in disposable methods, through terror, to control society- arguably the most efficient way to control a large. Another main strength is the fact that this form of government also has a perfected idea of society, which means that the government is trying to strive for their subjective view of what an ideal society is. However, totalitarianism doesn’t actually have a real “end”, besides an end to the society as a whole with no real citizens left (Arendt, 1994, pp. 298; “Week 6: Systems of Government I: Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism”, n.d.). One main downfall of this form of government, which has already been stated, is the excessive use of coercion and fear to obtain the goals of the leader. A main differentiating detail between this type of terror and other terror used in other forms of government is the fact that the terror is directed to anyone in society- innocent or guilty of disobeying the nation’s leader (Arendt, 1994, pp. 302). This also means that no one is immune and no one can protect themselves from disorder at the hands of the nation (pp. 303). These weaknesses all have major implications on the treatment of citizens and their basic human rights. Over time, this, in turn, can silence a whole nation as they are socialized into being passive members of society, which may remain silenced (“Week 6: Systems of Government I: Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism”, n.d.).

Democracy: Accountability and Rights

Arguably one of the best forms of government to this date is democracy. Democracy is different from other forms of government in how they select and hold their leader to certain types of accountability and limitations to their power (“Week 7: Systems of Government II: Liberal Democracy”, n.d.). The main feature of this type of government is the process of society electing a political leader for a term until the next election (“Week 7: Systems of Government II: Liberal Democracy”, n.d.). Further, this type of government resembles many liberal ideas and also holds that leaders should be representative and responsible for society, as well as the concept of rule of law where no being is above the set laws and regulations of a nation (“Week 7: Systems of Government II: Liberal Democracy”, n.d.). There are a few basic kinds of democracy: direct democracy, liberal democracy, and capitalist liberal democracy (“Week 7: Systems of Government II: Liberal Democracy”, n.d.). Direct democracy is when citizens are directly involved in politics: instead of a representative, an actual citizen may be used instead. The positive quality of this type of government is the fact that any regular citizen can join the political world, unlike traditional democracies in which may be difficult to break into from a lower class (“Week 7: Systems of Government II: Liberal Democracy”, n.d.). However, this is a difficult form of government to enact as most nations are heavily populated and the logistics around direct democracy would be very difficult to pursue (“Week 7: Systems of Government II: Liberal Democracy”, n.d.). Further, capitalist liberal democracy is quite similar to liberal democracy, but further adds a capitalistic characteristic of a market economy (Fukuyama & Fisk, 2004, pp. 1). This form of government has positive aspects, such as respecting independent ownership of property, freedom of speech, religion, and practice and political participation ((Fukuyama & Fisk, 2004, pp. 2). It is notorious for its positive economic performance and also has a welfare state for its citizens. However, there are downfalls to this type of government. First, it may contribute to social inequalities of society, even with a welfare system in place (pp. 2). Due to the promotion of individual pursuits of economy and globalization, wages for the working class has declined, work has been outsourced to other countries that are cheaper and underdeveloped (pp. 3). This, in turn, destroys jobs and makes it even harder for citizens to participate in politics is they are in a lower class. Further, there still remains no model or structure that plans to eradicate these inequalities (pp.3). Along with this negative feature, the individual nature of CLD may undermine group rights and cultures, religions, and so on (Fukuyama & Fisk, 2004, pp. 3). An example of a capitalist liberal democracy would be the United States- most states do have some form of social security but also allow and encourage individual pursuits in the economy.

In regards to liberal democracy as a whole, liberal policies and views such as social security and ensuring basic human rights are a fundamental element of this type of government (Fukuyama & Fisk, 2004, pp. 1). Democracies are also known for their economic performances (“Week 7: Systems of Government II: Liberal Democracy”, n.d.). Economic gain is great for a democratic country as the money can help citizens prosper by investing in health care and social security programs. Second, although there are liberalistic goals to protect citizens, they also have the ability to strive for individual economic growth and opportunity (“Week 7: Systems of Government II: Liberal Democracy”, n.d.). However, there needs to be a perfect balance between individual growth and the protection of vulnerable groups (i.e. poor homeless). Further, another key characteristic of democracy is the ability for organizations to be free from government interference (“Week 7: Systems of Government II: Liberal Democracy”, n.d.). This allows groups to even (peacefully) protest against the government if they are unhappy with the leader, a policy, law etc. Lastly democratic societies have checks and balances in place to ensure there are no severe abuses of power including the rule of law and the separations of power (i.e. executive, judiciary and legislative) (“Week 8: Systems of Government III: Presidents and Prime Ministers: Case Studies in Liberal Democratic Government”, n.d.). Canada is a liberal democratic society- they allow for individual pursuits of economic growth, a welfare state, and an elected leader that has a specified term. Citizens in Canada are also allowed to protest and attempt to fight laws that citizens don’t agree with. We are also more concerned with group rights due to our colonial past with the mistreatment of Aboriginal peoples (Ignatieff, 2000). However, there are concerns with the parliamentary system that Canada uses: Prime Ministers may have an unchecked abuse of power with “party discipline” and the ability to kick members out of their political party if they are voting against a particular issue (“Week 8: Systems of Government III: Presidents and Prime Ministers: Case Studies in Liberal Democratic Government”, n.d.). Moreover, there is also a concern with the representation of society: the parliamentary system allowed citizens to vote for a party, not the political leader, meaning that have indirect control of who decoding who the leader of their country will be. While the U.S may have more international power, their presidential system lacks the same amount of power within their own state compared to the Prime Minister (“Week 8: Systems of Government III: Presidents and Prime Ministers: Case Studies in Liberal Democratic Government”, n.d.). Moreover, weaknesses of liberal democracy as a whole include the possibility for group rights and individual rights to clash (“Week 7: Systems of Government II: Liberal Democracy”, n.d.). This is actually one of the major issues of the rights revolution as well (Ignatieff, 2000). In countries like the U.S (with a presidential system) where individual rights preside over group rights, this may affect minority groups and their religion, culture and ways of life (Ignatieff, 2000; “Week 8: Systems of Government III: Presidents and Prime Ministers: Case Studies in Liberal Democratic Government”, n.d.). With this being said, these can be solved under the Charter and S.1 and the law of reasonable limitations (Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982). Further, even though democracy allows citizens to participate, it is still very likely that a person of a higher class will be the one to run a country compared to a citizen of a lower class (“Week 7: Systems of Government II: Liberal Democracy”, n.d.). Humber College, Toronto Further, democracy is very hard to manage due to its inefficiencies and complexities (Dickerson et al., 2013).

Conclusion

In conclusion, there are several strengths and weaknesses in all forms of government. However, similar to Winston Churchill’s thoughts, liberal democracies are by no means perfect, but it is arguably the best form of government to date. The strengths of democracy outweigh the cons of this form of government and also outweigh the weaknesses and even the strengths of all other forms of government. It is no surprise that Winston Churchill had this opinion as he was a world leader around the time of the Holocaust lead by Hitler’s totalitarian regime and therefore saw the aftermath of a coerced/threatened society. Where, in contrast, liberal democracy, although debatable, is generally “for the people”. However, there is still room for improvement for future governments.