Dictatorship and Totalitarianism. A dictatorship is a government in which one person has nearly total power to make and enforce laws. Dictators rule primarily through the use of coercion, often including torture and executions.
Typically, they seize power, rather than being freely elected (as in a democracy) or inheriting a position of power (as is true of monarchs). Some dictators are quite charismatic and achieve a certain "popularity," though this popular support is almost certain to be intertwined with fear. Other dictators are bitterly hated by the populations over whom they rule with an iron hand. Frequently, dictatorships develop such overwhelming control over people’s lives that they are called totalitarian.
Monarchies and oligarchies also have the potential to achieve this type of dominance. Totalitarianism involves virtually complete governmental control and surveillance over all aspects of social and political life in a society. Bolt Nazi Germany under Hitler and the Soviet Union of the 1980s are classified as totalitarian states. Political scientists Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski have identified six bask traits that typify totalitarian states.
These include: 1. Large-scale use of ideology. Totalitarian societies offer explanations for every part of life. Social goals, valued behaviors, even enemies are conveyed in simple (and usually distorted) terms. For example, the Nazis blamed Jews for almost every. thing wrong in Germany or other nations. If there was a crop failure due to drought, it was sure to be seen as a Jewish conspiracy. 2. One-party systems.
A totalitarian Style has only one legal political party, which monopolizes the offices of government. It penetrates and controls all social institutions and serves as the source of wealth, prestige, and power. 3. Control of weapons. Totalitarian states also monopolize the use of arms. All military units art subject to the control of the ruling regime. 4. Terror. Totalitarian states often rely on general intimidation (such as prohibiting unapproved publications) and individual deterrent (such as torture and execution) to maintain control (Bahry and Silver, 1987). Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago (1973) describe the Soviet Union’s imprisonment of political dissenters in mental hospitals, where they are subjected to drug and electric shock treatments. 5. Control of the media.
There is no "opposition press" in a totalitarian state. The media communicate official interpretations of events and reinforce behaviors and policies favored by the regime. 6. Control of the economy.
Totalitarian states control major sectors of the economy. They may dissolve private ownership of industry and even small farms. In some cases, the central state establishes production goals for each industrial and agricultural unit. The revolt of the Polish workers’ union. Solidarity, in the early 1980s was partly directed against the government’s power over production quotas, working conditions, and prices. Through such methods, totalitarian governments deny people representation in the political, economic, and social decisions that affect their lives.
Such governments have pervasive control over people’s destinies. Democracy In a literal sense, democracy means government by the people. The word democracy originated in two Greek roots—demos, meaning "the populace" or "the common people"; and kratia, meaning "rule." Of course, in large, populous nations, government by all the people is impractical at the national level.
It would be impossible for the more than 246 million Americans to vote on every important issue that comes before Congress. Consequently, democracies are generally maintained through a mode of participation known as representative democracy, in which certain individuals are selected to speak for the people. The United States is commonly classified as a representative democracy, since we elect members of Congress and state legislatures to handle the task of writing our laws. However, critics have questioned how representative our democracy is. Are the masses genuinely represented? Is there authentic self-government in the United States or merely competition between powerful elites? Clearly, citizens cannot be effectively represented if they are not granted the right to vote. Yet our nation did not enfranchise black males until 1870, and women were not allowed to vote in presidential elections until 1920. American Indians were allowed to become citizens (thereby qualifying to vote) only in 1924, and as late as 1956, some states prevented Indians from voting in local elections if they lived on reservations.
Unlike monarchies, oligarchies, and dictatorships, the democratic form of government implies an opposition which is tolerated or, indeed, encouraged to exist. In the United States, we have two major political parties—the Democrats and Republicans—as well as various minor parties.
Sociologists use the term political party to refer to an organization whose purposes are to promote candidates for elected office, advance an ideology as reflected in positions on political issues, win elections, and exercise power.
Whether a democracy has two major political parties (as in the United States) or incorporates a multiparty system (as in France and Israel), it will typically stress the need for differing points of view. Seymour Martin Upset, among other sociologists, has attempted to identify the factors which may help to bring about democratic forms of government.
He argues that a high level of economic development encourages both stability and democracy. Upset reached this conclusion after studying 50 nations and finding a high correlation between economic development and certain forms of government. Why should there be such a link? In a society with a high level of development, the population generally tends to be urbanized and literate and is better equipped to participate in decision making and make the views of its members heard.
In addition, as Upset suggests, a relatively affluent society will be comparatively free from demands on government by low-income citizens. Poor people in such nations can reasonably aspire to upward mobility. Therefore, along with the large middle class typically found in industrial societies, the poorer segments of society may have a stake in economic and political stability. Upset’s formulation has been attacked by conflict theorists, who tend to be critical of the distribution of power within democracies.
As we will see later, many conflict theorists believe that the United States is run by a small economic and political elite. At the same time, they observe that economic stability does not necessarily promote or guarantee political freedoms. Lipset (1972) himself agrees that democracy in practice is far from ideal and that one must distinguish between varying degrees of democracy in democratic systems of government. Thus, we cannot assume that a high level of economic development or the self-proclaimed label of " democracy" assures freedom and adequate political representation.