Most people are well aware of what dictatorship or democracy is. These terms are constantly used by television presenters in the news. Even residents of remote villages with secondary education will be able to explain what is the difference between them. But most people do not know how a totalitarian regime differs from an authoritarian one. Moreover, some generally believe that these terms mean the same thing. In fact, this is not so. Let's try to find out how the totalitarian regime differs from the authoritarian one.
Wording authoritarianism
Authoritarianism, or authoritarian regime, is a phenomenon in which power is concentrated in the hands of one person or within the same group of like-minded people. At the same time, opposition forces in power are allowed, but only if they are politically weak. For the most part, the opposition has a decorative function under authoritarianism, and only in public does it oppose the official government. However, in areas that are not related to politics (culture, economics, private life), a manifestation of a person’s personality and character is possible. However, it is still important that freedom does not harm the current government and does not expose it in a negative light.
It is worth noting that almost any authoritarian regime will sooner or later come to the format of a single-handed dictatorship, and even if it began with the power of a certain group, it will still be transformed into a dictatorship regime. States based on an authoritarian regime have always existed. Today, Morocco or Saudi Arabia can be called such a country.
Totalitarianism
The totalitarian regime is figuratively called the "son of authoritarianism", because it is almost always a continuation of the authoritarian development of the state. In such a state, power is concentrated in the hands of one person whose rights are unlimited. Many similar cases are known in history, although the leader has always been called in different ways: the king, dictator, general secretary, leader, Fuhrer, etc. And although there may be a semblance of collective governance in the country, power is always concentrated in one hand. A great example is our recent past. In the USSR, there was a leading party organ of the CPSU Central Committee, although real power was concentrated only in the hands of one person — the party’s general secretary.
If we compare the authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, then first of all we can distinguish the sphere of society. With authoritarianism, a manifestation of character and personality is allowed, with totalitarianism - no. The latter regime seeks to control all spheres of society, including even thoughts. Any opinion that goes against the government’s opinion is considered a crime and punished with cruelty. The most striking examples are easy to find: Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin. And the list goes on and on.
We give a simple example to more accurately understand how the totalitarian regime differs from the authoritarian one.
Authoritarianism in Germany
Germany was defeated in the First World War. In the middle of the 20th century, the National Socialist Party came to power in a broken country and established authoritarian rule. Mostly the actions were aimed at strengthening the economy and military power of the country, but very quickly the power passed into the hands of one person - Adolf Hitler, who was the leader of the party. From that moment, the regime in the country began to transform from authoritarian to totalitarian. It is worth noting that the system of authoritarian rule in Germany was slurred. Even historians mention it only in passing, most often they talk about totalitarianism, which played a key role in the history of this country.
The formation of a totalitarian regime
After the final formation of totalitarianism began the forced planting of Nazi ideology. In parallel, a powerful ideological and police apparatus was created - a tool for effective control of the country's citizens. Moreover, the tool made it possible to control citizens not only within the borders of the country, but also beyond its borders. In the state, everything that could be controlled was controlled in general: sports, medicine, the press, culture, etc. All areas of activity of citizens fell under strict supervision. As a result, Germany turned into a very cruel, but well-functioning machine, where each screw had its place. The consequences of such a transformation are well known to everyone. Fortunately, Hitler’s regime did not last long, but even in a short period of time, it brought a lot of misfortune to the whole world.
In principle, Germany is a demonstration of how a totalitarian regime differs from an authoritarian one, because here one way of government has been sharply replaced by another. The results are obvious.
Ideology
It is secondary under an authoritarian regime of power. Here the main task is to force people to perform tasks that are acceptable to them. And this is the difference between an authoritarian and a totalitarian regime. The latter needs a very powerful and clear ideology, which is promoted by all possible means of information. It is also an excuse for crimes that can be committed by the government (leader) even against their own people. It is impossible to build totalitarianism without ideology - it will be doomed to failure.
Opposition
People who think differently do not like any power. But authoritarianism allows the use of the opposition for their personal purposes. Usually, opposition parties in this management regime create the appearance of opposition to the authorities, but in fact do not take any action. Such a “pocket opposition” can cast a vote on the command of the ruling party and hold peaceful protests that do not bother anyone.
The totalitarian regime differs from the authoritarian one in that it generally does not allow opposition to power. Even the very idea that someone can create the appearance of a struggle against power is strictly prohibited. Any troublemaker will be punished with particular cruelty. Consequently, even a fully controlled opposition under totalitarianism is excluded - for it there is not even a foundation.
freedom
Note that the similarities between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes are in freedom.
Authoritarianism allows citizens of their country to express themselves, it guarantees privacy and in those areas that are generally not related to politics. This applies to economics, medicine, sports, etc. However, culture is necessarily checked for the presence of a political component, the same applies to the spiritual sphere. If a criticism of the existing government is discovered, then negative consequences are possible for the authors of this criticism.
The totalitarian regime holds all spheres under tight control. Citizens should not go beyond the dictated rules in any field; everything should comply with the regulations and be strictly scheduled.
The general features of the totalitarian and authoritarian regimes are manifested here in the censorship of culture and the spiritual sphere. Both systems are concerned about criticism in these areas, only totalitarianism also intervenes in other areas of citizens' lives, authoritarianism is on the sidelines.
The role of the leader
In both modes, there is a leader, but only under authoritarianism, his role is not so great. The main thing for authoritarianism is the political structure of the country. Given the fact that the "king" with this method of government does not particularly interfere in the lives of citizens, his influence on them is weak. This leads to the fact that citizens are critical of their leader. Cases are quite common when citizens openly laugh at the leader of their country and express dissatisfaction. In the expanses of the former USSR, this phenomenon is a classic.
Under totalitarianism, the role of leader is extremely great. All kinds of propaganda equates the leader of the state practically with a deity whom all citizens are obliged to worship. At the same time, the leader must have strong charisma, and his people must love and believe in him. Moreover, people sincerely love him, and only a small part of the population may be unhappy with him, only they do not show this even in kindred circles.
And although the presence of a leader is a feature of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, they differ from each other on this basis, since the role of a leader is minimized in one case, and in the second one is elevated to the limits.
Finally
In conclusion, we note that both systems are ineffective and regressive, because in the end they lead to revolutions, war and even the death of the state. There are many such examples in the history. Now you know how a totalitarian political regime differs from an authoritarian one. The answer to such a question cannot be concise, since there are always several important differences.