Forms of Government

STATE

The state is an institution that claims to be sovereign over a particular society. Theorists differ as to whether the state primarily uses force to order society or relies essentially upon morality. Some argue that the state is based upon force. In Weber’s classic deﬁnition, the state is an institution that claims a monopoly of legitimate force for a particular territory. It is clear that while force is central to identifying the state, this force has to be monopolized, legitimate and focused territorially.

Others link the state to morality, arguing that the state is rooted in our notion of what is right. These writers do not deny that states use force: they merely argue that this is not its central attribute.

Others argue that the state is so complex that it is impossible to deﬁne. Easton, for example, contends that it would be better to speak of a political system rather than a state.

There is not only disagreement about what the state is, but also about when it arose. Those who identify the state with morality tend to argue that only the modern (or liberal) state should be called a state, since earlier polities were unable to sharply divide what is public from the private, control the lives of all in society, and make a distinction between an ofﬁce and the individual holding it.

Whereas the ‘morality’ school shows little interest in states’ origins (although Rousseau is an exception here) or argues (as in the case of Green) that states have always existed, the ‘force’ school raises the question as to why states emerge, and what made it possible for early tribal societies (like contemporary international society) to resolve conﬂicts through using sanctions of a non-statist kind. This makes it possible to at least ask as to whether it would be possible domestically for people to govern themselves without the state.

GOVERNMENT

A concept that is often used as a synonym for the state. Where government is differentiated from the state, it is usually taken to describe the executive and elected branch of the state, as when one refers to the ‘Labour Government’.

However, the term has a broader and different usage, when it is taken to refer to the implementation of policies that seek order and regularity. The term ‘governance’ is sometimes used to capture this process, although the term government is useful because it can be used to account for regulation at a multiplicity of different levels.

An ordered individual is often referred to as a person who governs him or herself. All kinds of voluntary institutions in society – with greater or lesser degrees of formality – are also seen as having governments. It could be argued that governments in this context rely upon social pressures to secure the adherence to rules, and therefore are contrasted with the state, which uses force to secure order. In this use of the term, government seeks to resolve conﬂicts of interest through negotiation and compromise so that stateless societies, whether domestic or inter-national, can be said to have government.

REPUBLIC

The term “republic” derives from the Latin root Res Publica, translating to “public affairs” in the context of delegating in the name of the common good over private interests. Contrary to the political structure of democracy, republican systems of government don’t regard the will of the people, but are rather entrusted to delegate according to what they believe would serve the common good. The republican system of government most closely aligns itself with the political structure of an “elitist democracy, ” in which a small body is elected either directly or indirectly by the people to carry out political affairs. While both political structures’ elected bodies filter more knowledgeable, capable individuals with the background to be entrusted to make and carry out policy, a republic does so by their own, trusted conception of the common good, while democracy requires the consent of the people.

While a republic functions independent of the people’s will, it denounces tyrannical rule and hereditary assumptions of power, requiring some sort of electoral process. These electoral processes prove dissimilar to those typical of tyrannies in that they occur periodically. These successive leaders in government are not chosen by those currently in power. Instead, they must go through certain political processes to be considered for an election.

The head of state of a republic is a prime minister or a president, instead of a hereditary monarch, which is the case in a monarchy. The president or prime minister is also the head of government. Republican is a term used to describe people who live in a monarchy and want to make their country a republic. However, just because a country has a prime minister or president, that does not necessarily mean the country is a republic. For example, the United Kingdom has a prime minister, but the form of government in the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy. This means that a hereditary monarch is the head of state, which is a ceremonial position, but the prime minister is the head of government, meaning that he/she is the chief of the executive branch of the government and usually presides over a cabinet. This is the case for sixteen other constitutional monarchies across the world that are part of the British Commonwealth, such as Canada. In an absolute monarchy, the hereditary monarch is both the head of state and head of government. In a republic, the president or prime minister is both the head of state and head of government.

Plato and Aristotle described the republican ideal as birthed out of a fear of mob rule, which is why it can reject the notion of popular sovereignty (in some cases) and prioritizes a body that works independent of majority rule, which can often lead to the demise or reversal of the political structures of entire nations. In Plato’s Republic, the theme of civil obedience ties itself into this republican notion of an elite body acting in the service of the common good, and with that, the mutual understanding of this determined “good.” While the United States represents itself as a democracy, it more closely aligns itself with the ideals of a republic, where there is an elitist ruling body and a combination of indirect and direct election that serves the common good.

If, for example, we look to these political structures that tie into the United States’ elections of representative bodies, we see that with the manipulation of districts in gerrymandering, or the disparities among the economic classes of people that can’t make election day, for example, people become disproportionately represented and/or left out of these aspects of direct democracy that function off of popular sovereignty. This is where we see more of these republican ideals and practices come to fruition in modern government or more specifically, in this case, the “democratic” United States,” where we must entrust our will and the common good to these people in positions of power.

OLIGARCHY

The term “oligarchy” comes from the Greek word oligarkhes, which means “few to rule or command.” Oligarchy is a form of government that means “government by the few.” This means that a small group of people regulate a whole nation and work to benefit their own self-interest. In a sense, oligarchies benefit those who have the capabilities to rule in order to satisfy their selfish needs. The leaders’ power and wealth increase over time as they make laws that favor themselves, manipulate financial markets, and create/exploit economic monopolies. Elitism is also a term associated with this form of government because those who are the government officials are seen as superior to its subjects. They are seen as “superior” to the general population, just like a monarch would be. These rulers in oligarchies were seen as elitists, since they generally were seen as wealthy, bright, high social status, or highly-ranked within their society. It is important to distinguish an oligarchy from an aristocracy. An aristocracy is also governed by a small group of people, but the leaders rule in such a way that satisfies the majority of the population.

It is argued that because a small group of people holds power, they will then act in the group's interest to maintain that power. In Pareto’s analysis of oligarchies, he noted the vast economic inequality that was present in many societies. Those who were wealthy were the ones who were doing well in life or excelling. He then stated that there will always be people who excel, therefore there will always be some form of elite in society.

Plato and Aristotle were some of the first philosophers to accept oligarchies as a form of government. Aristotle’s theory of comparative government distinguished governments based on how many people ruled a society and whether the leaders acted in the public interest or their own interest. According to Aristotle’s theory, oligarchy is the rule of a few, in their own interests. An oligarchy is a mixture between a monarchy and a democracy. A small group of people rule together and make important decisions like a democracy, but the small group is the supreme law of the land like a monarchy.

One of the most famous theses pertaining to oligarchies is the Iron Law of Oligarchy by Robert Michel. Michel theorized that all progressive social movements, no matter how radical or democratic they may be in the beginning, eventually turn into oligarchies. According to Michel this is especially true in large and complex organizations, a small group of people will naturally form in order to effectively lead the organization, whether this leadership is for better or worse. Thus, oligarchies have the potential to control other forms of government as well such as democracies because in every society there exists such a large and complex organization.

Reflecting on this form of government, oligarchies can be seen within many organizations today. Although it may seem as if oligarchies are becoming obsolete, there are still organizations that possess characteristics of an oligarchy. For example, American militaries and corporations have high ranking officers/workers that convene in small groups in order to improve their respective organizations, sometimes in a way that will benefit themselves. Countries with democratic systems can become an oligarchy if power is condensed into the hands of a few wealthy people - a corporate and financial elite. The United States features many components of a democracy, such as elections and freedom of speech, but policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans. There is an increasing concentration of wealth; the richest 1 percent of Americans now own 40 percent of the nation's wealth. The United States’ high levels of wealth and power concentration are characteristics of an oligarchy and are incompatible with democracy. An Oligarchy type of government is much like an Elitists’. Both of these types rest on a small group of people that must have certain qualities such as being wealthy, intelligence, social status, or a position of superordination. If this small group were to have all of these qualities, they could be considered as dominant elites. Having these characteristics makes the Elites strong against the poor and less educated since they cannot defend themselves against them. In addition, the less fortunate would have to abide by the elites since they are not wealthy compared to them and not as highly ranked in social status. These Oligarchies just like elitism have goals that benefit only those who are part of it in order to become stronger and wealthier. These aims benefit them and tend to have a negative effect on the rest of the inhabitants. Also, the poor cannot defy the elites since they are in charge of the government and have more resources at their disposal to reassure that they stay in power.

An example of an oligarchy would be Russia, even if Russia is under the rule of Putin. The elites of Russia are usually the billionaires who made their money after the fall of the Soviet Union by creating monopolies. Today, it can be argued that the United States is an oligarchy or on its way to becoming one. One of the main points for this argument is that the income gap as well as social stratification is only growing in the United States. Because of this, there is the possibility of a wealth-based oligarchy being formed. In this particular oligarchy, only the small portion of the population (the wealthy) would be benefitted from the government. This would mean that Congress would be more likely to pass laws that will solely help those who are millionaires or billionaires.

MONARCHY

One of Aristotle’s three basic forms of government, a monarchy is a system of government where an individual, such as a king or queen, holds the highest position of an aristocratic pyramid, and rules over the state. The other two were democracy and aristocracy. The role of kingship or queenship is a right often given at birth. Monarchs are not identified with any faction or political party. Instead, the king or queen usually follows tradition as they make decisions on government. As they are non-political, they can succeed naturally with one person making the decisions and usually basing it on what previous rulers did. Aristocrats, or wealthy members of a society, often wielded significant power as well. For this reason, monarchs sometimes had to rely on codes of honor between aristocrats and royalty to keep their power. These codes involved mutual obligations and worked because everyone benefitted. Aristocrats were kept from taking too much power from the royals, while it also limited the royals’ power because they had to secure the rights and privileges of the aristocrats. However, monarchs eventually no longer needed these codes after three things occurred: the aristocracy had less independence, the divinity of kings was highlighted, and the role of the church in secular affairs was minimized. There are many posts which we would consider monarchs. For instance, Roman emperors, Holy Roman Emperors, and kings of Poland all are considered monarchs.

Once monarchies began to consolidate their power during the Medieval and Renaissance periods, the aristocrats became less independent from the throne, the church had less say over the monarch's actions, and expanded the doctrine of divine right or divine authority. Divine right or authority backs up a monarch's claim to the throne because they supposedly endowed as God’s chosen ruler or a descendant of God. Divine rule also allows monarchs to do whatever they please in the name of God’s wishes. The belief that one person must hold all a country’s power because it was ordained by God is known as monarchism. However as more control was taken by monarchs, they began to lose the popular support of the people, just as King Louis XVI of France did in 1789. Revolutions soon began throughout the globe demanding for democratization such as the French Revolution, the American Revolution, and the Napoleonic Wars, the revolutions of 1848, and World War I. To find a compromise between the blood right and a nation’s best interest, a new version arose most commonly referred to as limited monarchy.

Today, monarchies are a shell of what they once were. In this version, the ruling family is a symbolic embodiment of a country's history. They serve as symbols of the states, without wielding much real power. This allows for the head of state to be above politics. As a result, they maintain their pristine role throughout the nation, while allowing for politics to be handled the best way possible. Power is instead vested in other government institutions, like parliament. A constitutional monarchy is similar and the most common form of monarchy, though monarchs have more power. In such a government, found mostly in Northern Europe, the monarch has limited powers and works with other bodies like parliaments and cabinets, leaving the main role of the monarch to represent national unity and citizen liberty.

The new leaders began taking down the monarchical systems, creating democracies, and gaining power based on their rhetoric. In this post-monarchism society, most monarchies have most often been reduced to a constitutional monarchy composed of an elected parliament, royally appointed cabinets and cabinets within parliament, an elected head of government (such as a president or prime minister), while the monarch only remains as a symbolic authority or head of state. The head of state, or constitutional monarch, reserves the right to warn, be consulted, and to encourage as a unifying figure for their country, especially in times of strife. However, it is mostly a symbolic position that performs ceremonial duties such as pinning medals and receiving ambassadors. There are few countries that currently have a traditional monarchy since most that were transitioned to a constitutional monarchy during the twentieth century. There are currently forty constitutional monarchies, but seventeen countries of the Commonwealth share the same head of state as the United Kingdom. This includes countries in Northern Europe- Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom- as well as countries in western Europe- Belgium, Holland, Luxemburg, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Spain.

DEMOCRACY

According to the Dictionary of Social Sciences by Craig Calhoun, the term “democracy” comes from the ancient Greek word “demos,” which means people, and refers to the rule by the people at the small-scale, and state level forms of government and decision making. Democracy is a form of government that can be executed in a variety of ways. The forms vary depending on how involved the people of the state are in the decisions made by the governing body. In other words, democracy itself, when defined, simply means a form of government in which the citizens are allowed to participate in the political decision making or are allowed to elect their leaders into office. Additionally, the modern democracy depends on the concept of popular sovereignty, which refers to the idea that the conclusive political authority “rests with the citizens,” but decision making is conducted by officials.

Democracy can be seen, and executed, in a variety of forms including, but not limited to, direct, representative, participatory, and deliberative. Typically, direct and representative are the most commonly discussed types of democracy. Direct democracy can be most simply defined as a form of government in which every eligible citizen has a direct say in the political decisions made and who is put into power. In other words, direct democracy involves everyone collectively making a decision and directly implementing those changes as a state. There are certain ways through which this can be executed. First, several states permit their citizens to make decisions themselves by utilizing devices such as referenda and plebiscites, in which “all citizens vote on a particular question.” Other ways of implementing this type of democracy include completely relying on the judgement of the legislature, face-to-face models, national constitutions placing specific issues directly on the discretion of the people, and the collection of signatures for the purpose of raising “proposition,” among others. The concept of direct democracy stemmed, most notably, from the Greek city-states in the fourth and fifth centuries BCE. The direct democracy in Greece involved any adult male citizen over the age of twenty taking part in the political decisions. A direct democracy, considering the opinion of every eligible citizen, would be significantly more difficult, if not impossible on a larger scale, such as the United States. This is where the concept of a representative democracy would come in.

Representative democracy can be defined as a form of government in which the eligible citizens of a state vote to elect representatives who will make decisions about politics and participate in the elections for government officials on their behalf. This type of government is also known as indirect democracy. The idea behind this type of government is that the eligible citizens in a state still have a say in the decisions made, but they vote to elect the people they feel confident share their viewpoints and will make decisions and vote on their behalf. This allows citizens to have a say in the government in a reasonable amount of time, while still being able to take into consideration what the people want. The most recognizable example of a representative democracy would be the government of the United States. It is suggested that some early Roman civilizations were the first to attempt a sort of representative democracy, although they also practiced a direct democracy in some assemblies.

Participatory democracy is primarily the idea that the people of a nation or state are in power and therefore that everyone in a democracy participates in the decisions and functioning of the government. . This form of democracy places extra emphasis on the idea of direct involvement as opposed to representation by means of elected officials. To what level individuals should be involved has been something that has been highly debated for a long time as some feel that participatory democracy lies in the ability to vote, some feel that community and political involvement are to be separated, and others feel that neither of these two options are nearly enough to satisfy the need for individual participation. In this, the idea of political participation as a whole can be widely debated and vary greatly in manner, intensity, and quality in which participation is defined and carried out. The idea is that all democracies are participatory and allow the people to have the power. Participatory democracy is very closely related to direct democracy. Participatory democracy highlights the importance of active participation of citizens in the influencing of the government and the decision making that will affect their communities. Participatory democracy is different from direct democracy because it is still politicians or government officials making the final decisions and implementing laws, but the citizens still influence decisions and participate in the functioning of their society. Some elements of participatory democracy can be seen in the United States, but it is not a pure form of participatory democracy. The idea of town hall meetings are a good example of how participatory democracy can play out on a relatively small scale.

The last form of democracy included here is deliberative democracy which can also be referred to as discursive democracy. Deliberative democracy is a form of government in which deliberation and debate are central to the decision-making process, and it has elements of both consensus decision-making and the concept of majority rule. To simply define this term, it employs a method of decision making where deliberation is a fundamental or principal process. In this case, deliberation refers to the idea that consultations, discussions, and proper consideration is offered to an idea prior to the officiating of any decisions. Commonly, this is described by a rather “leisurely” process, meaning that progress often takes place as a rather slow rate of speed. Under this type of government, commonly adopted concepts may be the idea of “majority rule” or decision by consensus. The ultimate aim of deliberative democracy is to legitimize the political decisions being made by creating practices that allow political decisions to be the result of mutual understanding, public reason, and a broader sense of political inclusion (Oxford Reference). This form of democracy considers the importance of communication when it comes to decision making and seeks to truly reach a consensus and agreement among the citizens when it comes to decision making and political functioning in their society. Deliberative democracy stands out from traditional forms of democracy by relying more on deliberation and fair discussion than simply a more quantitative majority opinion. This form requires deliberation as a key factor of a successful democracy. An example of deliberative democracy would be the debates that eventually led to the decision about budget allocations to deal with major public projects, such as the rebuilding of the city of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina.

In the end, democracy as a whole can be viewed as a form of government where control is held by the majority of its population. However, democracy can be broken down into smaller categories as representation of the population can be established out in differing manners. The main distinguishing factor is the level of involvement on the individual level as well as whether representation is wholly direct and individual or if representation is by means of elected officials. Here lies the difference between the types of democracy covered: direct/representative, participatory and deliberative.

DICTATORSHIP

The term dictatorship is defined as absolute rule by a person or small group, unrestricted by law; government by one ruler. Usually associated with arbitrary rule, dictators may be constitutionally appointed. The origin of the term dictatorship stretches back to the Roman Republic, where it referred to a temporary position under which a ruler was granted full authority. A magistrate was named dictator and given authority by the senate and assembly to “rule by decree” in a fixed time of emergency. It was not initially intended to be a full time position, but rather one that was granted under extraordinary circumstances. It was justified and often voted upon, such as how in Rome a dictator had to receive Senate approval in order to be granted their powers. However, this form of dictatorship rarely applies today, and indeed did not last in the Roman Republic. In 44 B.C., when Julius Caesar declared himself dictator for life, it signaled the end of democracy in Rome. His assassination ushered in an entirely new era for Rome: The Empire. Thus, was the beginning of absolute dictatorships. As Aristotle has defined, in contrast to tyranny, dictatorship is long-lasting and occasionally a “lawful system of rule.” Tyranny, however, is lawless and requires the coercive rule of a usurper. For example, Hitler’s actions as leader of Germany were unrestricted, but he did not come to power illegally. Instead, Hitler used charisma and mass support to reach his role of appointed Chancellor.

Throughout history, both the definition of a dictator and dictatorship have changed as they have taken on new meanings by those who gain power in that way. Since the general definition of what constitutes a dictatorship is fairly loose, there has been much room for interpretation and many different situations and governments can be classified as dictatorships. Dictatorships can also be distinguished based on how they were achieved. Oftentimes dictatorships are established through military force, but they are not limited to this method; sometimes, dictatorships have been achieved through gaining popular support in a country, which was the case with Napoleon Bonaparte in France. These are typically the two categories into which dictatorships are classified and divided. Dictatorships are different from monarchies in the sense that they are often centric around one person and their personality, and are typically not retained through family dynasties or achieved through claim of divine right to rule. Beyond Napoleon, the best examples of popular dictatorships would probably be Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler. While neither operated under the title of dictator, their positions were still very much dictatorships. Both seized power through gaining immense popularity in their respective countries, which propelled them into unchecked rule. Many times, especially in the twentieth century, it was required to maintain totalitarian states. In Soviet Russia, the idea of a “dictatorship of the proletariat” was embraced as a solution to overthrowing the bourgeoisie as it was declared a time of crisis, an homage to the original Roman idea of dictatorship. The concept of dictatorship is not new, but has been very prevalent throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Thus, the concept has continued to evolve and change to this very day.

In contrast to the Roman connotation of dictatorship, modern dictatorships are of dubious constitutionality. They could be divided into two kinds, military dictatorships inaugurated when soldiers seize power, and what could be called popular dictatorships whose leaders are charismatic and backed by mass support. Cromwell and Napoleon Bonaparte were early exemplars, both believers in ‘a whiff of grapeshot’ as a clarifying agent. Both saw themselves, and were recognized by many, as saviors of their country. These modern types of dictators justify their control through the people and preserving popular sovereignty from internal or external threats.

In the 20th century, Benito Mussolini is the acknowledged prototype of the dictator. He liked to look back to the Roman dictatorship, but his rule from 1925 onwards was unchecked by mandate. He entitled himself ‘I Duce’ and ruler despotically through his Fascist Party apparatus. Adolf Hitler, coming to power later, consciously modelled his rule on Mussolini’s. Their examples raise the issue of whether totalitarian rule inevitably leads to dictatorship, or whether it is a distinctive feature of fascism. The exponents of the former viewpoint to the 30-year domination of Stalin in communist Russia; while those of the latter see Stalinism as an aberration from the proper Leninist principle of collective leadership. Modern dictatorships, however, are more closely inspired by Mussolini’s rule in Italy through his Fascist Party apparatus. Often, modern dictators come to power through their charismatic authority and are backed by mass support rather than through dynasty, bureaucracy, or the ‘divine right of kings’.

Roman understanding of dictatorship has become popularized again by democratic institutions that grant similar powers to the executive in times of crisis, in many countries known as emergency powers. Emergency and temporary dictatorship has also been used by Karl Marx in his planning of the proletariat to seize control of the state after a revolutionary overthrow.

ANARCHY

While many people use the term “anarchy” colloquially to refer to disorder in society caused by the take-down of a government and dissolution of a state, it in itself refers to the absence of a centralized authority or government and does not promote violent disorder. The term anarchy derives from a Greek word that translates to ‘no rule,’ this means there exists inherent chaos to consider within the definition. Chaos is associated with anarchy as the lack of laws and structure desired, many picture such a society with no order as complete chaos and filled with competing interests. Individuals will display a lack of ability to agree and therefore the reasoning behind laws/structure is to have a universal consensus on major issues in society. But through anarchy it is believed that society is able to function better and most fairly with the people truly making their own decisions, non-coerciveness. An acceptance of every person having their own agency is key to this theory. Typically, actions are taken against a State, many come in disagreement with the type of guidelines larger entities place in society, therefore restricting agency. For example, anarchists typically resonant with small, niche-like groups in order to excel within a society. At the core it is typical to see anti-urban and anti-industrial beliefs, a theme rooted in tradition. Anarchists believe in a rejection of unjustified/unprecedented hierarchy. Based on the concept of not having any true ‘rule’ or ‘ruler,’ anarchy is represented with a circle-A symbol.

Anarchism is one of the oldest “forms” of government, as we know in early human history many humans lived in self-governing societies that had no centralized rule of government. Anarchy has been prevalent throughout time, being mentioned/exemplified in ancient Greek plays and talked about by many stoics and cynics. Cynics denounced law and the rule of governments because they believed humans needed to be in better harmony with nature, which governmental rule was holding back. The founder of stoicism, Zeno, who was influenced by cynicism, wrote in his Republic of a utopian society where anarchy was prevalent and there was no need for organized states, writing that if people were to follow their instincts and work towards peace in society there would be no need for a justice system that enforced laws. Anarchism made its appearance in modern times following the assassinations of multiple political figures, including the Russian Tsar Alexander the second and William McKinley, a former president of the United States. A recent example of anarchy in action arises from the Spanish Civil War. In opposition to the government of Spain, a group of anarchists took over territory in Spain and formed an anarchical society.

Classical anarchism was coined in the 1840s, and played an important role in the “working-class struggles” around the world at the time. The first person to identify under this theory was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a political writer who believed society held a natural order that could be sustained without the need for authority. Over the next century it would evolve into many different forms such as, mutualism, collective anarchism, and Anarcho-communism. Anarchism later went through another “revolution” post-World War 2, as capitalism started taking a hold on the world. It did however receive a resurgence during the 1960s with the rise of the New Left, which pushed for equality in society (such as civil rights and gender equality). The New Left movement found that the government was not acting in bettering society, therefore giving them anarchical undertones.

The two main principles of anarchism are: no need for government and no government can exist unless all citizens unanimously agreed upon it. Though this ideal can be seen on both sides of the political spectrum, through the left or the right analyzing their own idea of utopia through no control, the common feature is their disregard for current society structures. This can be seen as a type of critical utopia, they seek a future better than the one they are living in currently, whether that be in a left or right leaning light. It assumes that freedom is pure in definition, to be free is to be free from absolutely everything, according to anarchist theory everything must be consented to or else you are not free. Many social theorists have pondered and played with these types of ideals, such as Karl Marx’s in The Communist Manifesto. Furthermore, overtime anarchists have begun associating with violence against these structures. Most currently in the 21st century, they act against ideas such as capitalism and globalization. This is where we are able to see the connections between a direct democracy and an industrial democracy. Many anarchists have moved to a more socialist type of thinking, even though they do not explicitly advocate for a type of socialist system, simply being critical of any centralized authority system and systems of exploitation is the basis of this theory.

Anarchy in the United States commonly takes the form of individualist anarchism, and can be described as being right wing libertarianism. American anarchists are pro-capitalists, believing that protection of personal property was essential to autonomy and success of anarchism. Though never taking direct action, Henry David Thoreau was a strong voice for individualist American anarchism, citing in his Civil Disobedience work that a government works best when it does not heavily govern the people, but rather gives its people the ability to mostly rule themselves. In Europe, anarcho-individualists moved away from engaging in social struggles by instead challenging social norms and pushing for sexual freedom in society.

TOTALITARIANISM

Totalitarianism is a form of government defined by the presence of a centralized, consolidated political power that extends its pervasive influence over a society to eviscerate the agency and autonomy of individuals within the power system. The term “totalitarianism” was established under Benito Mussolini’s regime, and is derived from the Italian totalitarismo, which alludes to the totality of control by a state. Totalitarian “social engineering” is achieved by the monopolization of political power, where the dissolution of opposing political parties gives rise to the ultimate party, which is tasked with carrying out the government’s agenda. Often conflated with authoritarianism, the government of a totalitarian society is distinctly characterized by absolute domination over private social and economic spheres of influence. A totalitarian government controls all external elements of a society as a means to propagate and impose their own agenda, specifically through the spread of information that is purported to reflect the will of the government. As a twentieth-century phenomenon, totalitarian powers initially carried out their agendas by weaponizing modern mass media as technology for social control. Through the dissemination of state ideologies, totalitarian governments represent the absence of pluralism and personal liberty.

Many different aspects of totalitarianism can overlap with dictatorships or repressive government entities. However, all totalitarian regimes have three main things in common. First, all totalitarian governments exert complete control over their citizens economically and socially. Second, they have a complete lack of democracy in that the government leaves little to no freedom of choice to their citizens. Lastly, the one political party in control rears its presence in all aspects of society. The complete lack of freedom is absolute and “there is no half-way house between effective totalitarianism and genuine freedom” (pg. 211). Complete control of all aspects of the general citizenry not in the ruling party is exemplified by Lenin’s thoughts when he “never accepted that the Russian masses could be allowed much say in the revolution or its aftermath, and continually stressed the need for elite leadership and highly authoritarian control of the party central committee” (pg. 280). As Linda Cernak writes in “Totalitarianism” (p.12) “When a totalitarian government gains control, existing laws, government systems, and traditions are replaced or destroyed.” Cernak also aims to differentiate totalitarianism from a dictatorship which often gets confused with each other. A dictatorship mainly tries to control the government and military in order to keep its control over territory. However, in a totalitarian state the government tries to control every part of their citizens life, including the population’s central ideology. Essentially totalitarian rulers have even more power over their country than dictators do. They have total control over every single thing, hence ‘total’ in totalitarianism. This form of government is also seen as one of the harder governments to control a region through and the proof lies in how these keep control over their people.

Totalitarianism is often associated with authoritarian and dictatorial forms of government; however, it is unique and different from those two forms. The reason this happens is because, historically, totalitarianism exists alongside many authoritarian and dictatorial governments. Some notable examples of this include the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under Joseph Stalin, the Third German Reich under Adolf Hitler, and the People’s Republic of China under Mao Zedong. What was crucial to these governments was not necessarily who held the power, but how it was used. These states were characterized by their ability to invade all spheres and aspects of life, including culture, education, and occupation amongst others, in an effort to promote the ideas of the ruler/rulers and to quell any dissent. For instance, the Cultural Revolution under Zedong saw many traditional artifacts destroyed and traditional Chinese culture rewritten. Ultimately, totalitarianism fostered libertarian resistance movements in these countries, as seen by the formation of many groups of Soviet dissidents, and when these leaders died, totalitarianism died with them.

Only two countries are currently defined as totalitarian: Eritrea and North Korea. Eritrea is often precluded from mainstream media coverage because journalists were persecuted by the regime and there are no longer any independent newspapers. They were replaced by state-run media outlets, rendering it a state of “silent totalitarianism.” Eritrea has closed itself off from the United Nations, and accounts gathered from refugees describe egregious human rights violations: no political or religious freedoms, arbitrary detentions, extrajudicial killings, forced military and bureaucratic conscription, and some are subjected to intolerable conditions of rape and torture. The regime’s power is fueled by an atmosphere of fear, where constant government surveillance and spying reinforces control through Big Brother intimidation. Eritrea is colloquially referred to as the “North Korea of Africa,” since the Kim Dynasty and the Workers’ Party of Korea employ similar tactics to assert control, such as forced labor, constant surveillance, arbitrary punishment, torture, sexual abuse, executions, and restricted travel and contact with the outside world. Forced labor is also utilized by both Eritrea and North Korea as a means to sustain their economies in the midst of poverty. These contemporary examples contextualize the prototypical characteristics of totalitarianism.