Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism

Let us begin by defining and firmly planting two terms that many equivocally misinterpret like synonyms and swap as such.??These two terms refer to a system that exercises power and is authoritarian and totalitarian.?We think that the reason for the confusion is in that both abuse authority, which is to say that they ignore legitimate rights of the governed and exceed in the use of power for its management in government.??This is characteristic of the two systems, but a totalitarian one goes much further than the authoritarian one.?In a totalitarian government, there not only is excess in the use of power, but it goes to the total cornering of the person by control and manipulation of all their necessity and vital urgencies to finally force the incorporation of a current imposition of the social-political regime.??An authoritarian government accepts that citizens are politically neutral, but in a totalitarian government rights are not recognized in their neutrality, support is required.?The authoritarian regime defines a dictator, while a totalitarian regime involves a tyrant.

Totalitarianism vs. Democracy

??????Totalitarianism and democracy are two systems of government that harbor large and insuperable differences.?Each one of them represents faithfully the opposite of the other.?But many, who have not had a first-hand experience in a totalitarian country, cannot comprehend the degradation suffered by the person exposed to that situation.??It is for them that we think it convenient to start by contrasting the two systems so that the reader can experience what life is like inside a country subdued to totalitarianism.?

·?????????The absolute power of totalitarianism never arises from law and legality, but as a subversion of both; democracy always arises from law and law and is committed to maintaining both.

·?????????In totalitarianism the supreme power designates itself and in fact proclaims itself to be destined and providential; in democracy, the central power knows that the citizenship has chosen it to rule the country and that it is only a chapter in the history of its country.

·?????????Totalitarianism always seems to be based on a new era of justice and equality, which is why it needs to demolish the entire existing order; Democracy, on the other hand, does not destroy, but only amends errors, offers, and promotes new developments, elaborates on equal opportunity and human rights.?

·?????????For totalitarianism power is absolute possession of the country and of the citizenry, for which it raises itself over the citizens and claims the sacrifice of all their human rights; In a democracy power is just a service to the country and its citizenry, is exercised through a temporarily delegated power and is committed with respect to and in defense of human rights.

·?????????Totalitarianism encourages social class divisions to destroy solidarity and to try to reach and sustain its power; in a democracy, it elaborates and maintains solidarity as a means for achieving all kinds of growth.

·?????????Totalitarianism always centralizes the administration in an executive power that does not recognize nor permit the autonomy of other powers.??In a democracy, the central government has separate autonomous powers that balance the actions of the government.?

·?????????Totalitarianism creates purely formal organisms and without decision-making capacity, which serves to transmit and control the execution of the central directives, and to present itself as an organized society; in a democracy, does not only foment and respects the widest development in civil society, but it favors interaction to realize the common good.

·?????????Totalitarianism feels it is its right to keep power indefinitely; in a democracy, one knows that the government party is only for a predetermined period and then must run for re-election to regain power in favor of the people.

·?????????In a totalitarianism, all political expression is limited to what a one-party system determines what the official opinion will be.??A democracy recognizes and respects the rights of the parties and the plurality of opinions.?

·?????????In totalitarianism, the privacy of the individual is not respected, and the individual must accept this permanent manipulation.?In a democracy, the administration works to provides a stable society and gives individuals the greats right to privacy.

·?????????In a totalitarianism there is no respect to dissent.?In a democracy, the majority governs, but there is respect for the minority.

·?????????totalitarianism dehumanizes the person for the coaction to its personal expression and giving warning of a take over or pretending to support and giving reverence to the abstract body that they call revolution.?In a democracy, the democratic context is elaborated with the weaving of all expressions that manifest in liberty.

·?????????Totalitarianism condemns the past like an abominable global crime.?In a democracy, we support the experiences of that past to project itself into the future.

·?????????Totalitarianism destroys all the learned traditional values of everyday life, history, and culture, and substitutes for others without roots.?A democracy recognizes the value of these and maintains them like the bedrock of a true social construct.

·?????????Totalitarianism has a principal source of energy in its denunciation of an external hostility that sets a trap for it.?A democracy creates friendship ties with all the nations in search for the best relationships and avenues of development for its country.?

·?????????Totalitarianism does not have a willingness to change.?However, a democracy is open to change with every election.

·?????????Totalitarianism only is efficient and fast to achieve the objectives of current power, what is easy to explain for the control that it exercises over all the mediums, but it is very inefficient at joint objectives that the citizenry is interested in.?In a democracy you work for the interests that the citizenry is interested in and takes advantage of the strengths of its members in society, which makes for bigger and better results, even though slower are more enduring too.

You can say that in totalitarianism things are regressive and going backwards to a caveman mentality, while a in a democracy brings the best results and growth and development.?

In summary, you can say that totalitarianism is regressive and goes backwards in social human development to a caveman mentality, while a democracy in all its forms, brings about the best result of the long social huma n experiences.

?As demonstrated, these systems, are not simply different but also, not reconcilable.??It is nevertheless true that they have alternated contemporary history.?And it is just to recognize that the movement from one system to the other always lead to big social traumas.?The changes that are required are overly complex because both forms have created and developed the institutions they support and what you always hear in the mist of conversation a transition.

The reasons for a societal transition are numerous.??For example, in totalitarianism change does not happen because they renounce the democratic principles, but the majority opinion of the leaders and existing institutions are incapable of resolving he country’s problems.?And the return to democracy is determined by global failure (political, economic, and social) of a totalitarian society and the depletion of messianic discourse that has animated it.

??????It is true that the movement toward totalitarianism is always easier because of the de facto actions with which it forms is immediate and effective than those of which you defend democracy de jure.??It is logical that the destruction requires less effort than the construction. ?And the destruction is what totalitarianism exerts because it is born out of the negation of the existent order.

??????To compensate the great void that it provokes, totalitarianism defines and justifies itself with appeals to deep social emotions and values that legitimate irregular accession.?In socially delayed developed countries, they have done it with vindication of the exploited classes and to establish an equalitarian utopia.??In small countries, of more recent origin and with racial diversity, they have declared historic harms and loyal representatives of motivating ideals that have founded the respective countries and are fighters for the achievement of total and definitive sovereignty.??This term of the sovereignty is alluded constantly and used like a political dogma to drive the citizens crazy to achieve the ends of power.?They always globally condemn the previous social system with every type of insult, overwhelming it with harm, and propagating it with falsehoods, because it contributes to excusing its own abuses and be looked upon as a hero of the country.?With these tactics, they understand they acquire all liberty to reinterpret the rest of history for their convenience, y build a triumphant arc for its own accession.

?????In totalitarianism, when it takes overpower of a country, it always brings the intention to go beyond its borders. ???You may think that that they have it by instinct of conservation in search of international support, but soon you realize that they do it to understand its messianism does not fit the geographic dimensions of the country that serves as operation base and needs a bigger political space.?At first, it proclaims an idealistic and general discourse, but soon its actions are uncovered and executed on equal forms, that later turn defiant.?

??????In totalitarian regimes always come and stay because they proclaim to have a definitive solution.?It does not matter that their path to fulfill promises and compromise is untrue and filled with endless cruelty. ?It continues proclaiming its rulings like prophets on a path toward the promise land, without recognizes that its motives are its personal power and an excessive ambition, and that would never satisfy.

Despite its abrupt style, its crimes are hidden, and its turbulent intentions ambushed in all its arrangements, the totalitarians do not give up their prestige.???Even though reality screams a deafening shout that there is no liberty, nor democracy, they tell you they are governing a free populous and the most perfect democracy.?And although there is not a popular consult to obtain representation over the national sovereignty, the totalitarian robs that representation to use it and defend itself and showcase international politics.?When a logical analysis of its actions comes to a dead-end street and inconsistencies, the totalitarian decide that it is time to disown the language and the established definitions or dethrone the universal recognition of the Aristotelian way to establish a conclusion.

A totalitarian regime, subduing social political reality of the country to a heightened temperature, can merge all the concepts and instances in one single abstraction, even though endowed with many facades.?And these facades are the ones that later permit itself to demonstrate a good and convenient side at every turn in its totalitarian business.

The Totalitarian Phenomenon

??????Separating from its characteristics, let us analyze totalitarianism like a social and political phenomenon.??Let me just say that all totalitarian foundation requires four factors that make this ideology possible.?Those are:

1.???????The existence of a crisis

2.???????The appearance of a charismatic leader

3.???????A historical situation opportunity

4.???????A utopian ideal

?

You can analyze how these four factors repeat themselves in the totalitarian process and to be clearer, compare the Cuban situation with the United States. But before we move on to that, let us define a democracy vs. a constitutional republic.

The Crisis in a Democracy

The Cuban democracy demonstrated economic and social accomplishments but, it had a big crisis.?Even though it had celebrated three decades of democracy in succession, there existed a part of the military that housed a sympathetic yearning for validity of Fulgencio Batista during the 1930s.??As a result, on September 4th there was a Military Civic Organization that did a political about face on the country, that among other things, brought a rush to get away from the existent military and the establishment of a new military.?This was accomplished through the promotion of many superior military grades that in those times believed in the de facto changes than in democracy.??All of which resulted in being riskier.

In the political field exists diverse political parties.?Except in America, where there only exists two parties.??Some of them were volatile like the momentary interests that created them.?But there also were major political parties with progressive programs that created important institutions that gave the republic solidity. During those 3 periods the country enjoyed a true regime of freedom, the media blossomed, and socially advanced laws were passed beneficial for the working class.?You can also say that the middle class grew and was consolidated into a sector that could define the electoral results of the country.?Unfortunately, political debate between the parties always brought a collation of corruption accusations, embezzlement, and misappropriation, and typical embezzlement in the fight for power in all Latin America, and though in the developed world, but few times was it proven true. However, the debate was radicalized, and the tone was raised on the accusations, until an irresponsible point that resulted in diminishing the credibility of the parties and its leaders before public opinion.??It was not strange to hear the sensible populous to say that the political profession wasn’t for decent people.?Despite all the previous the economy marched on, the Cuban dollar was solid, the industrialization was advancing, the assignment of funds for education was elevated and produced top professionals, the syndicalism had an expansive development with lots of achievements for the working class, the consumer index, and high-level services, when compared with other country developed countries, and Cuba was acquiring prestige in the international forums.

???????????This is not to say that Cuba was a perfect country.?There were different social levels that ???required attention. Proof of this social leveling was realized in studies done at the universities. The students studied life as an agriculture worker in Cuba.??The study demonstrated issues that claimed action was needed in these areas and the government should step in with a solution. But the very instance of realizing this conquest demonstrated a will to understand and the intent to correct those inequities.?All this happened because Cuba was an incredibly young “Republic” in existence for only fifty years. ?It had inherited a colonial situation like the United States, and it had a small demographic density.?It also had a single economic agriculture-market based on sugar, that was racially diverse and civilized, and had little chance to acclimate, develop, and exploit all the natural resources of the country.?Cuba was not able to develop all the necessary communications to refine the economic cogs.?But Cuba was a country that believed in it is future and that know that any justified claim could fine a possible solution.

Elections always brought new hope and new politicians that would need to work well if they wanted to win in the next election.?It was in that atmosphere and in that moment that Fulgencio Batista choose, along with a military group elite, to destroy all the democratic mechanics of the country.??He corrupted the process of government, but the reality was that he was alone weeks from a presidential election that brought honest candidates, capable and with prestige. ?Since it was about waiting, the coup plotter immediately readjusted the military order, conceded ascent to consolidate his position and promulgate statutes to govern under his mandate.

It was obvious that the surprised Cuban people, accustomed to freedom and for having been in the wake of a popular consultation, felt mocked by that violation of their constitutional order. so far there were no major reactions beyond the public condemnation because the dictator achieved the support of all the armed forces.

Meanwhile Batista took advantage of all opportunistic complicity offered to him to stabilize his regime, rewarding them with depredations to the treasury. The corruption was reaching levels never seen before and benefited not only the members of the armed forces but also politicians, journalists, and intellectuals. Then he intended to legitimize itself with a broad program of public works, with the appointment of capable officials who implemented sound economic policies, and finally by calling for two election processes. But the parties and the people did not allow themselves to be conquered, they believed that they could not trust in the honesty and legality of those elections, and in large part they went to abstentionism.?There is no doubt that a country in the conditions just described was suffering a real democratic crisis.?And it was this crisis that opened the door for subsequent events.

?

The Caudillo (Leader)

???????????On the other hand, the warlord had been incubating.?He did not arrive by an institutional path, although he tried without results.?this was the case when he tried to intervene in university student politics with a view to obtaining his election as president of his faculty, and through this, to be able to aspire later to the position of president of the University Student Federation (USF). This position would have served as a springboard to enter the country's recognized national policy.?But he saw his ambition thwarted by these charges because of the extreme rejection he professed to the student.?then associated with armed groups of political gangster activism who acted in the Cuban environment, and that sometimes they were projected internationally, as was the case in the so-called Bogotázo of Colombia.??But neither did this violent activity yield him the political dividends that he aspired to, but it did gain him publicity. ?Cayo Confites' failed expedition to overthrow Rafael Leonidas Trujillo was another unfinished adventure for his pedigree.??For Fidel Castro coming to power was not a human aspiration but an obsession, and it was immediately noticeable when you dealt with him. Then he decided to resort to the institutional and joined the Orthodox Party, where despite the mistrust of many leaders, he managed to be nominated for representative in Congress.?It was those elections that were ruined by Batista's coup, and Castro was again frustrated. But this same dictatorship would have to provide him with the opportunity to pursue his goal through arms, which would never have been acceptable against a democratic government.?Very soon, as he was not willing to give up his plans, he tried a new way to achieve power.?It was proposed and he managed to convince and organize a group of young idealists for an action, which supposedly, could bring the end of the military regime that had taken over the government of the country.

???????????The fact that Castro could plot this group of young people for a major action, without defining that it was the attack on the second garrison of the country, and of such doubtful result in addition, demonstrates the atmosphere of radical rejection that already existed in some sectors of the country.

???????????But it also demonstrates the power of impression and seducing that Fidel Castro had, and that he has continued to exert on his interlocutors to this day. The action of the Moncada Barracks was extremely ambitious, bloody and a little unjust, but the courage of those who participated in it cannot be detracted from. In fact, it was the first armed action against the Batista regime that later served as a reference for the struggle of the 26th of July Movement. But now we want to note a characteristic of Fidel Castro's struggle that began in the assault on the Moncada Barracks, continued until his arrival in Havana in 1959 and still exercises it in his moments of crisis.

???????????The struggle that had been raised was for the recovery of the democratic order defined by the Constitution of 1940, so all the leaders said since the first protests, and that was the struggle that ignited in the Cuban people.?No one thought that the contest could have an ambush of a different intention. The leaders of the armed forces generously and heroically launched themselves into combat, exposing their own lives to the ultimate sacrifice, for the obvious purposes of returning to the rule of law and democracy.?There is no doubt that they did so imbued by the meaning of a phrase from our Cuban National Anthem, which proclaims that the “to die for the homeland is to live.” ?Too many died in those undertakings: Reynold Garcia, Jose Antonio Echeverria, Menelao Mora, Fructuoso Rodriguez, Frank Pais, the Moncada attackers who died in the action, and others. But it was not like that with Fidel Castro. He was not fighting selflessly for the democracy everyone wanted, but for his personal goal of gaining power. And if that was the goal, there was no point in him risking losing his life in that fight.?For many years back Castro had been developing a cunning way of sparing his own risks at the cost of sacrificing idealistic young people to achieve his political benefit and the ends he pursued. This characterized all stages of his struggle, and then he has continued to demonstrate it during his half-century of tyranny.

???????????With the jubilant triumph of the revolution, everyone expected a normalization of the country.?But it soon became clear that the facts were not heading in that direction and that he would have to fight again. And it is for them the revolutionaries of the first batch of opposition to the country's communitarian movement proclaimed that they were rebooting the fight due to a betrayal of the will and sacrifices of the Cuban people, and they had a right to do it.?

The Historical Trend

???????????The situation was gradually formed by the concurrence of facts from various aspects. The first, and most important, was Batista's stubbornness in refusing any kind of solution so that the republic could return to the Constitution and democracy. ?There were many opportunities offered to him through various political proposals, but he wasted them all. The most logical and airy would have been the election of 1954, but with the candidacy of the dictator himself for the first magistracy of the country it was demonstrated that they were only convened to legitimize and extend the stay of the coup leader in power.?But there were other initiatives such as the National Movement, the Montreal pact, the Society of Friends of the Republic with its Civic Dialogue, and finally the rally of the Square of the Dock of Light.?None of them interested Batista who felt in control of the country and did not accept anything that could end or diminish his power. With this, the people were losing hope for a bloodless solution and reordering their suspicion that there was no other solution than the armed one.

???????????The political parties and the armed forces are the institutions destined to safeguard are the institutions intended to safeguard the regime of rights and democracy of the country, but in the Cuban case both institutions failed. The political parties did not feel strong to face a coup that managed to control all the armed forces, and then went to the abstention in the rigged elections that were called to elect a new Congress, for the certainty that the dictator would rig them so that the results were favorable to their interests.

In reality the parties offered a sad aspect of impotence, and subsequently many of their members were passed on to the groups of the armed struggle. And it is clear that this situation of delusional political absence contributed to the situation for the advent of totalitarianism.

???????????The armed forces remodeled again by Batista, with profuse promotions of elements that were affectionate to him, lost their character as a national army for the defense of the country and its institutions, and became Batista's troop. Many of its members took advantage of the power situation and began enriching themselves with extortion of merchants, with concessions for illegal gambling, and allowing all kinds of corruption in exchange for profits. And this at all levels, from the dictator Batista to the block police. The people began to have the perception that the armed forces were not cause for concern, and this led to the successes of those who fought in the underground to depose the regime were soon seen with sympathies. For so much corruption it was breaking the morale of the armed institutes and their beginnings of authority. The corruption of the high commanders led to the transition of the guerrilla troops opposing one province to another in exchange for money. If the situation of political parties was sad, the situation of armed bodies was execrable and shameful, first for having supported the coup, and second for exposing the country to a vacuum of power that allowed the arrival of totalitarianism. A final conjunctural aspect was the progressive disappearance of the other leaders who had fought in the open and with courage, who were recognized for their ability and prestige, and who had the confidence of the people to hold power and restore democracy. The generous sacrifice of these commendable lives thus came to benefit those who only fought for their power and reserved themselves for the day of victory.