Totalitarianism, being a dictatorship, characteristically includes the coercive
qualities noted in such varied dictatorial systems. But unlike most dictatorships
of the past and present, the totalitarian movements wielding power
do not aim to freeze society in the status quo, but on the contrary institutionalize,
or plan to, a revolution which mounts in scope, and frequently in intensity,
as the regime stabilizes itself in power. This revolution is to pulverize all
existing social units in order to replace the old pluralism with a homogeneous
unanimity patterned on the blueprints of the totalitarian ideology. The power
of the totalitarian regime is derived not from a precarious balance of existing
forces (e.g., church, landed gentry, officer corps) but from the revolutionary
dynamism of its zealous supporters who disarm opposition and mobilize the
masses both by force and by an appeal to a better future. This appeal is normally
framed in the official ideology, or action program, of the movement. In time, of
course, the dynamism decreases, but by then the system is buttressed by complex
networks of control which pervade the entire society and mobilize its
energies through sheer penetration. An institutionalized revolution, patterned
on the totalitarian ideology, thus makes totalitarianism essentially a forwardoriented
phenomenon. Most dictatorships, on the other hand, have as their
object the prevention of history from keeping in step with time. Their survival
depends on maintaining the status quo. When they fail, they become history.
This proposition can be further developed by examining the fate of restraints on political power,
which are present in varying degrees in all societies, once the totalitarian movement seizes
power. These restraints can be broadly listed in three categories: 1) the direct restraints,
expressed through pacta conventa such as the English Magna Carta or the Polish Nihil novi .... ,
the Bill of Rights, constitutional guarantees, a rule of law, or even the broad consensus of
tradition which rules out certain types of conduct, such as the use of violence; 2) the indirect
restraints which stem from the pluralistic character of all large-scale societies, and which
necessitate adjustment and compromise as the basis for political power, e.g., the churches, the
economic interests, professional, cultural or regional pressure groups, which all impede the
exercise of unrestrained power; and 3) the natural restraints, such as national character and
tradition, climatic and geographical considerations, kinship structure and particularly the primary
social unit, the family. These also act to restrain the scope of political power.
Suspension of civil rights, open or masked subversion of established constitutional practices, and
negation of popular sovereignty have been characteristic of all non-constitutional states,
totalitarian or not.
Brzezinski, Z. (1956). Totalitarianism and rationality. The American Political Science Review, 50(3), 751-763.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
