• Non ci sono risultati.

Foreign policy and diplomacy in totalitarian and democratic states

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Condividi "Foreign policy and diplomacy in totalitarian and democratic states"

Copied!
142
0
0

Testo completo

(1)

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ...p. 3

Chapter 1

Discussing democratic and non-democratic regimes

1.1 Introduction to democracy...p. 9

1.2 Democracy and its alternatives ...p. 15

Chapter 2

Totalitarian regimes: origins, contours, features

2.1 A brief history of the word and the origins of totalitarianism ...p. 21

2.2 Identifying authoritarianism and totalitarianism ...p. 24

2.3 The six features of totalitarianism as described by Friedrich

and Brzezinski ...p. 29 2.3.1 Ideology ...p. 31 2.3.2 Single mass party/leader...p. 33 2.3.3 System of terror...p. 35 2.3.4 Monopoly on the army ...p. 36 2.3.5 Monopoly on the media ...p. 37 2.3.6 State planning ...p. 38

(2)

2 Chapter 3

Understanding foreign policy and diplomacy

3.1 Foreign policy

3.1.1 An introduction to foreign policy and foreign policy

analysis: definition and concepts...p.40 3.1.2 Levels of analysis in foreign policy ...p.44 3.1.3 A Two-level game: domestic and international politics...p.55 3.1.4 Comparative foreign policy and factors influencing foreign

policy ...p. 58

3.2 Diplomacy as a tool of foreign policy

3.2.1 Historical review of diplomacy, its meanings and its

origins ...p.66 3.2.2 The functions of diplomacy ...p.69 3.2.3 Old and new diplomacy ...p.75

Chapter 4

The case of Communist China and the U.S. policy towards it. The Taiwan issue

4.1 China`s past and factors that led to the rise of PRC ...p.79

4.2 Maoism and Mao`s foreign policy of New China ...p.86

4.3 China and USA in the twentieth century: difficult negotiations

and contrasting foreign policy convictions...p.94

4.4 The unresolved Taiwan issue………. p.107

Conclusions………..p.126 Bibliography………..p.132

(3)

3

INTRODUCTION

The study of mankind, with all its historical background, fascinating development, strange behavior, complex and highly diverse culture, has always represented an intriguing subject area, and many scholars, be they psychologists, anthropologists, political thinkers, historiographers and so on, have tried to describe, explain and ultimately decipher and predict it. In the same way, a particular branch of political science, namely foreign policy analysis, attempts to do just this, but by analyzing states at an international level.

Foreign policy analysis, as such, helps us understand what is happening at an international level. The behavior of certain states can be analyzed in order to better apprehend their actions and even predict future ones. This slice of governmental activity grew in importance especially after the Second World War, when the status of international super-powers has changed gravely. The countries that had dominated the world in the past were now replaced by new

emerging ones, this resulting in a change of the old balance of power.1 In the

eyes of many, and also as a realistic description of the international situation at that time, the main actors that took control of the international environment were the United States of America and the Soviet Union (USSR), engaged in a struggle that represented two radically different countries, with quasi opposed core values and socio-political systems, namely totalitarianism (socialist

communism) and liberal democracy.2 This fight would eventually take over all

1

Andreas Wegner, Doron Zimmerman, International relations: From the Cold War to the Globalized world , Lynne Rienner Publishers, USA, 2003,pp.4.

2

(4)

4

the actors in the international arena and affect them in some way or another. The People`s Republic of China is one of these examples, becoming one of the red countries under the Soviet Union`s umbrella and growing ferociously, thus becoming a matter of interest to the international community, but particularly to its major powers.

But while the field of foreign policy in general has produced a relatively large amount of research, there is still much to be explored and explained of the above mentioned foreign policy dilemma, namely the way in which regime types (totalitarianism and democracy) influence the dynamics of state behavior at the international level.

This is precisely what this dissertation paper tries to achieve, and the way in which it will do so will be by examining in a comparative way the characteristics that influence the process of foreign policy making in totalitarian and democratic states.

In order to make this comparison clearer and more effective, the chosen countries are representative for each category of the discussed regime types, and as such are characterized by contrasting elements of importance to the study of foreign policy behavior. These actors are The People`s Republic of China and The United States of America and the timeframe for this comparison is one that represents the highest value for this purpose: the beginning of the 1940s until the 1970s. The ultimate aim of this description and analysis is that of achieving a better understanding of their foreign policy decisions and also help reveal valuable patterns in their decision making process.

On the road towards achieving this goal, Chapter 1 starts with a necessary and useful introduction to democracy, launching us into the world of democratic regimes in order to provide the base for understanding the core

(5)

5

differences between the two regime types of interest to us. As democracy is one of the most durable ideas in politics and most of the scholars believe that it is unlikely that it will lose its centrality, it is obvious how one should start by understanding this regime type and only then moving further.

The definition of democracy comes in many shapes and forms, but there is one phrase that is often used to define the concept of democracy, which is an excerpt of Abraham Lincoln`s Gettysburg Address: “government of the

people, by the people, for the people.”3

But this wide use of the concept of

democracy might be misleading and produce confusion, as there are many differences between the self-proclaimed and defined democracies. Today there are a high proportion of authoritarian states that have institutions conventionally associated with democracy, such as public elections and pluralism. This is why it is essential to apprehend the mechanisms of democracy and what stands behind this notion, in order to be able to separate fiction from reality. Chapter 1 has just this purpose, and after it has done that it will continue to present us with the possible alternatives of democracy, as well as with the prospect of these latter alternatives to make a transition to democracy and the mechanisms to achieve it.

Following the same footsteps, Chapter 2 is a discussion on totalitarian regimes and, just as the title of the chapter suggests, presents the regimes` main origins, contours and features. Starting from a general definition of the concept: “the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an

absolute state authority.”4, the chapter moves towards a more in-depth

analysis of the meaning of the term and its actual significance for the regimes that chose to follow it as a guideline in governing the state. Based on the

3

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=36&page=transcript, accessed at 25.10.2014.

4

(6)

6

various description and analysis of influential intellectuals in the matter, such as Hannah Arendt and Juan J. Linz, the chapter makes an exhaustive examination of totalitarianism, including one subchapter on the slight and subtle difference between totalitarianism and authoritarianism. A further useful component of this chapter is the illustration and interpretation of the six features of totalitarianism, as presented in a fundamental reading on authoritarian and totalitarian regimes “Totalitarian dictatorship and

autocracy” by Carl J. Friedrich and Zbigniew K. Brzezinski. The two notable

historians and writers developed a theoretical model of totalitarianism, providing some basic traits or characteristics of this particular type of regime. The so called “syndrome” of totalitarian dictatorship is defined by six main features, which the writers think are complementing each other in the perfect way in order to support the framework of a totalitarian system.

After providing this basis of the two concepts and having become more familiar with the upcoming category of comparison (two different regime types: totalitarian and democratic), Chapter 3 offers an extended discussion on foreign policy and diplomacy, focusing on their most relevant aspects and methods. Being divided into two parts, specifically one on foreign policy and one on diplomacy, this chapter carefully and extensively describes and analyzes the two. The material advanced in this chapter is essential to the thesis as a whole, as it provides the tools for examining the foreign policy behavior of the two States in question.

It is obvious that a good understanding of foreign policy and a proper use of it can avoid conflicts between countries and it determines the state of relationship among them. This is why Foreign Policy Analysis was born, as a means of understanding the decision making process of states, the actors that are responsible for the decision-making and also the conditions that affect

(7)

7

foreign policy and their outcomes. Essentially, following in the footsteps of foreign policy analysts, we will try to understand and explain why these particular states behave the way they do and what pushes them in a certain direction. In doing so, Kenneth Waltz`s model of three “images of analysis” is reviewed, as it provides a useful theoretical framework in the process of understanding political events and foreign policy behavior. This is why, for the purpose of this thesis and in an attempt to describe, understand and analyze foreign policy decision, behavior and outcome, Waltz`s three images will be used and reinterpreted accordingly, namely 1) the individual level of analysis, 2) the state level of analysis, and 3) the international level of analysis. These last two images or levels of analysis launch us intro a discussion on an important issue for foreign policy analysts, namely the two-level game.

It is a theory developed by Robert Putnam, in which he essentially describes a situation in which foreign policy decision-makers must try to satisfy both domestic requirements and international responsibilities, putting them in a very delicate situation of trying to find a balance between the two. This will represent a second model or base of analysis that will be useful for the ensuing analysis.

Ultimately, all of the above material paves the way to the last chapter that deals with a comprehensive comparison of two arguably opposite regime types (totalitarianism and democracy), where the two specific actors chosen (The People`s Republic of China and The United States of America) provide a fertile ground for comparison. America and China are two of the most vastly different nations that could be compared and admired together, with extremely contrasting characteristics in most aspects, and this is precisely why they were chosen as representative actors in the comparison. Thus, Chapter 4 follows, in

(8)

8

a descriptive and analytical manner, the developments of the relationship between the two actors, following a relevant timeline for the purpose of the paper, by examining their differences that can be traced back to historical backgrounds, religious beliefs, and cultural characteristics. The last part of this chapter focuses on one key aspect in the Sino-American relationship which represented, and still represents, a particularly sensitive and highly problematic matter in their foreign policy connection: the “Taiwan issue.” Although their relationship was generally an unhappy one, this is possibly the central obstacle in their relationship.

(9)

9

CHAPTER 1

DISCUSSING DEMOCRATIC AND NON-DEMOCRATIC

REGIMES

1.1. Introduction to democracy

“Democracy arises out of the notion that those who are equal in any respect are equal in all respects; because men are equally free, they claim to be absolutely equal.”

Aristotle

Democracy is one of the most durable ideas in politics and although it is unlikely that it will lose its centrality that does not mean that its interpretation is fixed. It is an idea that shaped itself into reality, but in being that, we must remember that the two must be kept separate: the idea and ideals of democracy, and the reality and the actual existing democracy.

The twentieth century history was heavily marked by the boom of non-democratic regimes, may they be authoritarian or even totalitarian, leading to a general disappointment for democracy. But the collapse of the non-democratic regimes witnessed at the end of the 1990`s gave people hope and was proof of the triumph of democracy to the point that most of the regimes

(10)

10

today regard themselves as democracies. But this wide use of the concept might be misleading and produce confusion, as there are many differences between these self-proclaimed democracies and the well-defined ones. Today, many of the authoritarian states have institutions conventionally associated with democracy, such as public elections and pluralism. This is why the gap between the theory and practice of democracy is a debated and much discussed problem. Giovanni Sartori is one of the most valuable scholars in the matter, and he also saw the problem of this word applied to reality. He is of the idea that “democracy happens to be a transparent word, that is, a word

easily anchored to a literal, original meaning. Hence, it is very easy to define democracy verbally.”5

What is more difficult, according to Sartori, and not

only him, is to define democracy in practice and to identify it using empirical evidence.

So then, what is democracy and how can we identify existing democracies? The term `democracy` was born in ancient Greece, hundreds of years ago. As such, its meaning has changed over time repeatedly, and especially the way of using the term, referring to different historical events and different ideals of the time.

However, democracy meant `rule by the people `.The originals term combines two short words; the first one `demos` means the totality of citizens living in a city-state (polis), while the second one `kratos` means either power or rule. This was later to become a term that defines a situation in which the citizen body of a city-state actually govern themselves.

5

Giovanni Sartori, The theory of democracy revisited, Part one: The contemporary debate, Chatham House Publisher, New Jersey, 1987, pp. 7.

(11)

11

This lead Athens to a blooming and successful future of democratization, it being the most stable and long lived democracy of the Greek empire, intended, of course, in the term of those times.

But the modern man has different needs and expects different things from democracy, so it makes sense to say that the ideal of democracy in itself has changed. In the thousands of years since the success of Athens, the civilization has been enriched, modified and articulated, through all the changes it had witnessed and produced. Man, now, expects much more from democracy that it did then.

If we would be to define democracy today, it would be useful to cite Norberto Bobbio`s “minimal definition” of democracy: “…a democratic

regime is taken to mean first and foremost a set of procedural rules for arriving at collective decisions in a way which accommodates and facilitates the fullest possible participation of interested parties.”6

He tries to give a

more clear and defined definition, compared to the more general ones which simply state the power of the majority, politically expressed, over the minority. Thus, he defines a series of rules that should be applied in order to define who takes the collective decision and what procedures are to be used in order to choose them. This actually means the power of the simple majority vote, accompanied by other civil and political rights.

However, there is more to democracy than that. In order for modern democracy to exist, an open and competitive political and economic system must be available, as a precondition for its development. Furthermore, pluralism is a core component of democracy, as without it we cannot speak of a true democracy, but rather a fake one. Without giving the voter a real choice between various factions, we only have an authoritarian regime which tries to

6

(12)

12

copy the mechanisms of democracy, for the sake of protecting the illusion of freedom of choice.

For this situation to actually be plausible, the democratic state must guarantee the basic rights: freedom of speech, of expression, of assembly and so on. These are the preconditions that characterize the mechanism upon which democracy is based, and are also the same ones that define a liberal state. Considering all this, we can also see how a liberal state is as well a necessity for democracy to be born, and we can actually say that the two are interdependent. This can be seen in the fact that Western democracies are both liberal and democratic, so they present the two most important feature of each: liberty and equality. To use Sartori`s words “the formula of liberal democracy

is equality through liberty…”7

But having said this, we should keep in mind that liberalism and democracy and still two different concepts. Liberalism developed as an opposition against the old system, in the sense that it wanted to create a sphere of civil society, with social and personal relations that could be part of the private life, without state involvement. Linked to this is the creation of a market economy that respected in the same way the private property. Secondly, liberalism wanted to obtain the mechanism of representation, meaning the will of the people as the base for state power. This particular aspect is the one in which liberalism demands democracy, and the two intertwine. What we now recognize as liberal democracy was liberal first, (in the sense that it wanted to restrict the power of the state), and only then democratic. The distinctions between the two was also emphasized by Friedrich von Hayek, who stated that liberalism was what the law should be, and democracy was the manner of determining

7

Giovanni Sartori, The theory of democracy revisited, Part Two: The classical issues, Chatham House Publisher, New Jersey, 1987, pp.388.

(13)

13

what the law will be.8 For him, democracy should be a mechanism though

which the majority should decide what the law would be, this of course was to be done within a framework that determined some limits. However, it is important to remember the significance of one to another and the way in which both concepts help each other.

As I have previously stated at the beginning of this chapter, there are many definitions of democracy and, as with many other concepts, many debates arose on what democracy actually is or what it should be. Regarding this, we could say that Joseph Schumpeter demolished the classical way in which democracy was portrayed, the “will of the people”, and opted for a narrow concept of democracy. He gave a procedural definition of democracy and viewed it simply as a political method, saying that “ The democratic method is

that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people`s vote.”9

At the other side of the pole, we have the definition of David Held, presenting a different understanding and perception of democracy, going beyond the pure mechanics of democracy and focusing more on what democracy should bring to the people: “Individuals should be free and equal

in the determination of the conditions of their own lives; that is, they should enjoy equal rights( and accordingly equal obligations) in the specification of the framework which generates and limits opportunities available to them, so long as they do not deploy this framework to negate the rights of others.”10

8

Georg Sørensen, Democracy and democratization. Processes and prospects in a changing world,Westview Press, USA, 1993, pp.6.

9

Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism,socialism and democracy, Second edition, Harper Publisher, New York, 1947, pp.269.

10

(14)

14

Although we have here two different views of democracy, we can state that democracy is not only a political tool, but it also defines a social and economic system.

In an attempt to help us better understand democracy, Robert Dahl organized what in his view represents the five criteria for democracy:

1. Effective participation; 2. Voting equality;

3. Enlightened understanding; 4. Control of the agenda;

5. Inclusion of adults.11

The first one refers to the fact that all members must have equal opportunities to present their opinion to the others regarding the future of the policy. The second one presents us with a situation in which all votes are equal and all citizens must have the possibility to vote. `Enlightened understanding` simply means that all people must have the possibility to learn about possible policy alternatives, they must have “adequate opportunities to learn about the

matters before the association by inquiry, discussion and deliberation.”12 The

fourth criterion implies a more incisive control over the policies, in the sense that members must have the possibility to change it if they consider it necessary. The last one simple highlights the fact that all adults residents (within the general framework) must have the right to vote.

The purpose of his criterion is simple; it is similar to a check list. If a regime presents all of the above mentioned criteria (but not only) it is most likely democratic, and if it does not then the country is not a democracy. It is

11

Robert A. Dahl, On democracy, Yale University Press, USA, 1998, pp.38.

12

(15)

15

important to mention that these characteristics do no suffice to define a democratic regime; it is merely an attempt to help identify blunt democratic or non-democratic regimes, for then going into a more in depth analysis.

Moving ahead, we can define the three elements or the three dimensions of democracy. First of all we need a state, which manifests its control over a certain territory and also on the organizations existing and working within that territory, which is also internationally recognized by other states, organizations etc. Secondly, the state must have citizens; these citizens are the voters that decide whom their ruler will be; the relationship between state and citizens is translated in parties, labor unions, corporations, etc. The last element is public politics, encompassing everything from elections, taxes, military involvement to patenting and pensions. The interactions between these elements help us see the degree to which the state acts accordingly to the right and the wishes of its citizens. As C. Tilly said, “a regime is democratic

to the degree that political relations between the state and its citizens feature broad, equal, protected and mutually binding consultation.”13

Even though the debate on democracy has not ended yet, we can make a good use out of these classifications and of the various definitions presented above. They will all be useful when faced with the task of identifying a democratic regime and bringing arguments to support that.

13

(16)

16

1.2. Democracy and its alternatives

As we have mentioned in the previous chapter, the twentieth century was one of massive changes. We can say this because on the one hand, we have witnessed a spread of democracy, but on the other hand that period also brought us the creation of new types of non-democratic regimes. It is important to understand these non-democratic regimes, as they still represent a significant input, and we can see this if we take the example of China. These regimes have had a significant impact on the countries in which they developed, modifying the government and its policies. We can still see the effects of that when we look at former non-democratic countries that have turned democratic. Newly emerged democracies, like most of the former communist countries of the Eastern Europe, still manifest the after-effects of dictatorships.

But when we think about democratic and non-democratic regimes we have to try to take a step back from the present view of the normal state of the all-present democracy, and virtually take ourselves back in the normal state of the past. Non-democratic regimes were not an exception in human history, rather a norm, whether this was represented by monarchies, empires, military regimes or one-party states.

After that, a modern type of non-democratic regime developed, which

“combines dictatorship by an organization (or its leader) with a claim to be committed to democracy”.14

What actually changed with this new type of non-democratic regime is that the military or political organization that held the power claimed they use it in favor of democracy. We will recognize this when

14

Paul Brooker, Non-democratic regimes: theory, government & politics, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire, 2000, pp.3.

(17)

17

we look back in time, especially on the case of Nazi Germany, where Hitler`s rise was though democratically held national elections. But, through this façade of democracy, the political or military party undemocratically seizes the power or it inappropriately uses what it democratically obtained. One of the first examples of this is represented by Napoleon, who used referendums to legitimate his military dictatorship, and he did so by adapting the democratic principle `will of the people` in his advantage, using it then in undemocratic ways.

This type of action was then predominant to the developing non-democratic regimes, up until the twentieth century, when the true form of new and modern dictatorship developed. It no longer had just the claim of democracy, but also a very important component: ideology. We can see how this tool was used and shaped in the majorly important non-democratic (actually totalitarian) regimes developed in that period: communism, fascism, Nazism. Ideology was used especially by these totalitarian regimes to justify their undemocratic actions.

Even though the Second World war brought the end of fascism and Nazism, communism still continued to hold its power, and still does so today, along with other types on non-democratic regimes; we have the example of China and North Korea, and the one-party system and military dictatorship that became common especially in African countries.

We know how communism has it basis on Marx`s ideas, that were then reshaped by Lenin, using the notion of `dictatorship for the proletariat`, which would actually mean that that should be a democratic dictatorship, as it

would be in the name of the people and for the people.15 So he used the idea of

democracy and applied it to his construction of the dictatorship of the

15

(18)

18

proletariat; this, as we know, never actually existed, but what did exist was a dictatorship over the proletariat, with the people having absolutely no say in any matter. The idea of democratic dictatorship is not plausible as dictatorship

itself means “a power structure that permits absolute rulership”.16

Having said this, we can see how the idea of democracy has been distorted over time for the use of non-democratic regimes.

In order to fully understand democracy, it only makes sense to place it next to its opposite, to undemocratic regimes. The latter form has many shapes, from totalitarian, authoritarian, military to civilian dictatorship, despotism, etc. Following in the footsteps of Sartori, we will try to understand even better what democracy is not, because “to establish what democracy is we must also

establish…what is the opposite of democracy”.17

In an attempt to find the exact opposite of democracy, the author takes us through various alternatives that could be a match. He presents us tyranny, despotism, absolutism, dictatorship, absolutism and totalitarianism. Even though many of these choices could, at a first glance, be a good opposite for democracy, and maybe totalitarianism has been assumed to represent the full negation of democracy, Sartori states that autocracy is the best term. Autocracy implies a self-proclaiming ruler or inheriting the right to rule. This is the actual opposite for democracy, as democracy “stands for a system that hinges on the principle

that no one can proclaim himself ruler, that no one can hold power irrevocably in his own name”.18

The leaders have to be chosen by the people,

and this has to result from a democratic election, in all that it implies. From this derives also the fact that power is not a property that can be owned by someone, so consequently nobody can use power limitless and without

16

Ivi., pp. 472.

17

Giovanni Sartori, The theory of democracy revisited, Part one: The contemporary debate, op.cit., pp. 182.

18

(19)

19

boundaries. This is one of the premises of constitutionalism: limits to the power of the state. Of course, the statement that autocracy is the opposite of democracy does not suffice in defining the latter; but, just like Sartori said:

“we obtain a precise demarcation of where democracy begins (or ends) and a clear focus on where its positive identity lies”.19

However, a non-democratic state can make a transition to a democratic one through democratization, as it has been the case in history with various undemocratic countries. In order to do so, there must be a collapse of the existing non-democratic rule, in order to allow the development of a new democracy. This change might happen peacefully, as a normal and slow evolution of the democratic process, or it can be the result of a conflict or coup

d’état and even a split among the forces that kept the authoritarian coalition

together. This latter one might happen because one part of the coalition believes in more democratic forms of rule, and this is usually because they seek to obtain various advantages in front of the citizens of the country and from the international environment.

There are some scholars that support another thesis, according to which the political leaders of a non-democratic regime might opt for a democracy, or more correctly to a semi-democracy, as a solution to a series of problems. That is, the elite group that has the possibility to make a change, will do so only if it is in their best advantage. This transition will be a result of negotiation between the former non-democratic regime and the new pro-democratic one, but this will result in a new democracy that will be highly restricted in many ways, with room for maneuver for the previous elite. This was the case of a number of ex-undemocratic regimes, like some in Latin America, Eastern Europe, Asia which went through a period of

19

(20)

20

redemocratization20, meaning becoming democratic again after suffering a

nondemocratic rule.

But creating a new democracy is different and even more difficult to achieve than establishing a democracy. The newly created democratic regime will often be more democratic than the previous demolished one, but it will not be fully democratic just yet. This is because the whole process of a complete democratization is a very complex one, developed in various phases that may take a long time to complete. Just like Rustow said in his “Transition to democracy. Toward a dynamic model.”: “The factors that keep a democracy

stable may not be the ones that brought it into existence”.21

The tasks of a new democracy are very complex and not easy to carry on; it has to introduce or institutionalize all the features of a functioning democracy. But the most important thing for a new democracy is the support of its citizens. While this was not a big concern in the previous undemocratic regime, as it had the support of the army, police, and elites, this is however crucial when transitioning to a democracy, in maintaining and supporting the new regime.

A new democracy, even with its weak democratic characteristics at the beginning, will have the advantage of public support. People will prefer a `second-hand` democracy, rather than going back to the old suppressive regime. Sartori highlighted this fact by saying that “we cannot, strictly

speaking, prove democracy, but we can convincingly argue that democracy is preferable”.22

20

Georg Sørensen, Democracy and democratization. Processes and prospects in a changing world,op.cit pp.32.

21

Dankwart A. Rustow, Transition to democracy. Toward a dynamic model in Comparative Politics Vol 2, No.3, 1970, pp. 345.

22

Richard Rose,William Mishler, Christian Haerpfer, Democracy and its alternatives, Polity Press, UK, 1988, pp.12.

(21)

21

We have seen what democracy is, what democracy is not, and that

undemocratic regime can make transitions to become democratic ones

.

In the

following chapter we will develop more the topic of non-democratic regime and try to examine them for a better understanding of their functioning.

(22)

22

CHAPTER 2

TOTALITARIAN REGIMES: ORIGINS, CONTOURS,

FEATURES

2.1. A brief history of the word and the origins of totalitarianism

“Every historical event begins with the struggle centered on naming”

Milan Kundera

Although we can say that the world has entered an age of democracy, the study of totalitarian regimes is still a matter of interest not only to students of political science but also to people with different backgrounds. This is because, as we can see reviewing the early history of the 1990s, the wave of democratization has seen rather a downfall and as a result this left important

non-democratic regimes in place. 23

But what exactly is totalitarianism and how do we define it? The Webster’s International Dictionary defines totalitarianism as “the political concept that

the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority”24. The

word ‘totally’ is worth underlying, precisely because of its key significance to the definition. This is also emphasized by one of the most important scholars of this field of study, Carl J. Friedrich, who wrote that “

totalitarianism…….is indeed total; it engulfs the whole man who participates

23

Paul Brooker, Non-democratic regimes:theory, government & politics, op.cit., pp.1.

24

(23)

23

in it, hence has its economic, sociological, and other aspects beyond the political and governmental.”25

While this is one of the most generally accepted definitions of totalitarianism, there are various other notable writers that provided descriptive theories of totalitarianism, offering a broader and deeper (and often more personal) description of the concept.

One of the most important thinkers to be mentioned when talking about totalitarianism is unquestionably Hannah Arendt. In her book “The origins of

totalitarianism” she attempted to understand and trace the paths that lead to

the development of totalitarianism. “It is a an attempt to make contemporary

phenomena intelligible by tracing their origin back to the eighteenth century, thus establishing a time unit in which the essence of totalitarianism unfolded to its fullness".26

Arendt was the first thinker to perceive totalitarianism as above all, a modern phenomenon, a product of the modern times and their failures, defining it “a

new form of political rule in the human history”27

. She debated the “why” of totalitarianism based on two particular cases, Soviet Russia, under the rule of Stalin and Nazi Germany, under the rule of Hitler, which represent two of the

three more largely accepted “prototypes”28

of totalitarian regimes (the third one being Fascist Italy, under the rule of Mussolini).

These cases represent the first countries to which the term was applied in the 1930s, even though `totalitarianism` has surely been used prior that time, with rather different interpretations. This is why we are talking about

totalitarianism etymologically used in the 20th century, more specifically in

25

Carl J. Friedrich, Totalitarianism, The University Library, Grosset & Dunlap, Nem York, 1964, pp.4.

26

Eric Voegelin, The origins of totalitarianism, The review of politics , Vol.15, No.1, 1953, pp. 68-76.

27

Hannah Arendt, The origins of totalitarianism, Harcourt Brace & Company, USA, 1951, pp. 307.

28

(24)

24

1925, a moment in which the word gained a specific meaning, used and reused, with rather different valences, until this day.

Although there are various debates on the first use of the word, most of the scholars agree on its first use of it in Fascist Italy that was then translated into English based on the Italian model of “totalitario meaning complete, absolute,

totalitarian, -from total(adj.) + ending from authoritarian”29.

As mentioned above, the first use of the word is traced to Fascist Italy, more

precisely during a speech of Mussolini, on the 22nd of June 1925, in which he

talked about “lo stato totalitario” and “la nostra feroce volunta`

totalitaria.”30

Following this event, Mussolini incorporated this word in his

vocabulary, using it every time he wanted to emphasize the wholeness of the fascist system “tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo

Stato”31 .

Benito Mussolini may have been the first to use this term in the modern time, but he did not invent it. The adjective `totalitarian` appears to be used firstly by the liberal Giovanni Amendola, and other Italian intellectuals, in describing the Fascist regime as a new type of absolutist system, much different from the other existing dictatorships.

Shortly after, Giovanni Gentile, Italy`s official Fascist philosopher, gave the term a positive meaning. Together with Mussolini, he then used the term to describe the structure and the goals of the new Fascist state: “total

representation of the nations and total guidance of national goals.”32

The case of Fascist Italy is a perfect example in which we can see the use of the term as a positive concept, introduced in the Italian Encyclopedia p recisely

29 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=totalitarian, accessed at 03.05.2014. 30 http://www.mussolinibenito.it/discorsodel21_06_1925.ht m, accessed at 03.05.2014. 31 http://www.mussolinibenito.it/discorsodel28_10_1925.ht m, accessed at 03.05.2014. 32

(25)

25

by the ones that conceived it and made it part of the common use. But the same cannot be said when talking about the other two “prototype” regimes, Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. Both countries had a very brief experience with the usage of the word, preferring other synonyms instead, like autoritär (in the case of Nazi Germany).

We can thus see the multitude of interpretations and different views given to the term and why we must firstly understand its complete meaning before using it bluntly. Its inappropriate use can have negative consequences, especially in characterizing or defining a certain regime.

Since the end of World War I the term has been used by numerous writers, philosophers and politicians in imprecise ways, being applied to a vast range of non-democratic regimes (from Fascist Italy to Cuban dictatorship), as well as to movements, processes and parties. This is why we must understand the sense in which the term is used and understand its characteristics, which will be presented in the following chapters.

2.2. Identifying authoritarianism and totalitarianism

Understanding the difference between authoritarianism and totalitarianism and the types of regimes they both characterize is very important before being able to move on with an in depth analysis and application of the latter.

In the previous subchapter we have seen when and how totalitarianism as a word and as a concept was born, and also some views of highly respected intellectuals on the term and what it stands for. Moving on, we should make a

(26)

26

comparison between the definitions of both terms and we will do so by using Encyclopedia Britannica at first, as an attempt to avoid bias positions.

To what regards authoritarianism, the Encyclopedia gives the following definition:

“…authoritarianism denotes any political system that concentrates power in the hands of a leader or a small elite that is not constitutionally responsible to the body of the people. Authoritarian leaders often exercise power arbitrarily and without regard to existing bodies of law, and they usually cannot be replaced by citizens choosing freely among various competitors in elections. The freedom to create opposition political parties or other alternative political groupings with which to compete for power with the ruling group is either limited or nonexistent in authoritarian regimes.”33

We can already see some differences if we look back at the definition of totalitarianism given prior, using the Webster`s International Dictionary (“the

political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority”34); but we will emphasize the subtle difference in concept with a

further definition given still by the Encyclopedia Britannica:

“totalitarianism, form of government that theoretically permits no individual freedom and that seeks to subordinate all aspects of the individual’s life to the authority of the government….. totalitarianism is characterized by strong central rule that attempts to control and direct all aspects of individual life through coercion and repression.”35

Although at a first glance it may seem that there is almost no difference between the terms, they are actually both alike and different in many ways. It

33

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/44640/authoritarian ism, accessed at 09.05.2014.

34

http://www.merria m-webster.com/dictionary/totalitarianism, accessed at 09.05.2014.

35

(27)

27

is important to see what these differences are and why this has been a subject of debate amongst professors, thinkers and scholars.

Totalitarianism is considered by many an authoritarianism taken to the extreme, and this actually results more clearly now that we have a parallel of their definition, presented above. But while totalitarianism is less applicable to a wide range of specific cases, due to its extreme form, this is not the case for authoritarianism; this is because the term is widely applicable to numerous cases that might closely resemble an authoritarian regime. The term can and thus has been used so broadly and often, to the point of it becoming a synonym of non-democratic regimes. We could use the presentation given by Leonard Schapiro and describe authoritarianism to define: “a state in which

obedience to authority is favoured as against liberty; and in which there is little control over the way in which authority is exercised.”36 So we can see

that while authoritarianism does indeed define non-totalitarian governments, it has a more specific use and we should not fall in the trap of using in generally when talking about non-totalitarian regimes, as there are many other types that could be included in the same category: dictatorships, oligarchies, etc.

One of the most influential descriptions of authoritarianism is that of Juan J. Linz, where he presented authoritarian regimes as: “political systems with

limited, not responsible, political pluralism, without elaborate and guiding ideology, but with distinctive mentalities, without extensive nor intensive political mobilization, except at some points in their development, and in which a leader or occasionally a small group exercises power within formally ill-defined limits but actually quite predictable ones.” 37

36

Leonard Schapiro, Totalitarianism, op.cit., pp. 39.

37

(28)

28

With this description of the term, Linz highlights the characteristic nature of an authoritarian regime and thus offers it as much of a particular application as totalitarianism received. He focuses on the means of exercising and organizing the power, connecting it then with society, as well as on the type of beliefs that support it and the role played by the citizens.

To go even deeper in the argument and see also further differences between this term and totalitarianism, we should at least mention the four distinguishing features of an authoritarian regime pointed out by Linz and generally used as a guideline for identifying the term.

1. The first one is related to the limited pluralism, as stated above: “limited, not responsible, political pluralism”. First of all, it must be pointed out that, unlike in democracies, where pluralism is as free as possible, in the case of authoritarian regimes this pluralism is extremely limited, but nonetheless existent, as opposed to the case of totalitarianism. This pluralism can be legal or de facto, severe or moderate and can be either limited to a specific political group or extended to interest groups, as long as there are groups independent

from the regime that can more or less freely express themselves.38

As such, we can consider this first feature as being the most important one in defining authoritarianism and separating it from totalitarianism. 2. The second one is the lack of an ideology, or rather its replacement with

`mentality`. As also stated by Linz, mentalities are more emotional than

rational and, and rather inconsistent and formless. On the other hand,

`ideology`, which is one of the characteristic traits of totalitarianism, is

composed of fixed and defined elements, and based on “strong affect

38

(29)

29

and closed cognitive structure”39

, all of these representing important factors in controlling the masses.

3. The third feature is represented by the low or limited political mobilization that characterizes most of the regime`s history. This might be because a case of complete mobilization, carried on by an authoritarian leader or a single party, would be perceived as a threat by the group pertaining to that limited pluralism mentioned in the first feature.

4. The last feature is the existence of a leader or a single privileged party that even though claims to have the monopole of power and might seem to perform in the same way as totalitarian leaders or parties do, they actually act in predictable ways, within the weak, but still existent, limit of power. This is why authoritarian and totalitarian parties are and must be kept separate, because they indeed act in different ways. Another distinction between these two is the way in which these parties were created; authoritarian parties are usually created from above, by the groups that hold the greatest power, while in the case of totalitarianism the parties, with their distinctive leaders, win the political power fighting from below.

These fours features help us understand the similitudes, but mostly the differences, between the two types of regimes, with the latter representing the focus point of this study.

39

(30)

30

2.3. The six features of totalitarianism as described by Friedrich and Brzezinski

Along with Hannah Arendt`s previously mentioned book “The origins of

totalitarianism”, Carl J. Friedrich and Zbigniew K. Brzezinski`s book

“Totalitarian dictatorship and autocracy” is a fundamental reading when studying and trying to understand authoritarian, and especially totalitarian regimes. Just like H. Arendt, they emphasize the novelty of the totalitarian regimes, stating that “no government like totalitarian dictatorship has ever

before existed, even though it bears a resemblance to autocracies of the past”.40

They too share the same belief that modern technology is a key factor for the creation of totalitarianism, with all the weapons it created and various means of communication that allow a more thorough control of the masses. As such, they state that a first and more superficial characterization of totalitarianism would be “an autocracy based upon modern technology and mass

legitimation”.41

The two notable historians and writers developed a theoretical model of totalitarianism, providing some basic traits or characteristics of this particular type of regime. The so called “syndrome” of totalitarian dictatorship is defined by six main features, which the writers think are complementing each other in the perfect way in order to support the framework of a totalitarian system. We will see these six traits and then discuss each of them in detail.

1. An official ideology that demands full adherence, may this be active or passive, which denies the previous order and has as its major project

40

Carl J. Friedrich and Zbigniew K. Brzezinski, Totalitarian dictatorship and autocracy, Frederick A. Praeger Publishers, new York, 1966, pp. 23.

41

(31)

31

that of creating a new society, a new world, “ a perfect final state of

mankind”.42

2. A single mass party usually headed by a leader, the “dictator”, organized hierarchically, with the small percent of the population composing it being dedicated to promote the party and its ideology, and closely integrated with the state bureaucracy

3. A system of terror, carried out by the secret police and the party, directed against their enemies and/or any random groups of the population that might be perceived as a threat, all done with the help of modern science

4. Quasi complete control and monopoly on the mass-media or any other type of communication by the party

5. The same type of control and monopoly on all weapons and armed forces.

6. Centralized management of the economy through bureaucratic

coordination.43

Even though they faced, and still face, various critiques, these are the features that are generally considered as being the most appropriate and well written ones characterizing totalitarian regimes. Friedrich and Brzezinski themselves admit that there are various differences between types of totalitarian regimes, for example between Fascism and Nazism, which are different when analyzed based on these 6 features. That is why they are careful to mention that the three classic examples of totalitarianism are

42

Carl J. Friedrich and Zbigniew K. Brzezinski, Totalitarian dictatorship and autocracy, op.cit,pp.22.

43

(32)

32

“basically alike….it means that they are not wholly alike…For example, they differ in their acknowledged purpose and intentions”.44

Nonetheless, this is considered by many as one of the best characterization of the main features of totalitarianism, and has been used by various scholars in their works.

If we look now at the features presented below, we understand better the writer`s focus on modern technology; most of the features are conditioned by it. This is an important observation, because it allows us to see why totalitarianism developed when it did. This type of dictatorship developed in the twentieth century and grew in such a way precisely because it had the means to. The modern technologies of the time allowed an advanced supervision and control of the people, to the point that the authors stated that

“totalitarian societies appear to be merely exaggerations…of the technological state of modern society”. 45

Using the same context, the authors also make a connection between autocracies and totalitarianisms by saying that “totalitarian dictatorship, in a sense, is the adaptation of autocracy to

twentieth-century industrial society”.46

2.3.1. Ideology

When talking about totalitarian ideology we must firstly distinguish it from the nowadays use of the term. Ideology is understood as being a set of ideas that stands for a set of beliefs that shape the way in which a community works. It is a term that can be applied to various fields from political to economical,

44

Carl J. Friedrich and Zbigniew K. Brzezinski, Totalitarian dictatorship and autocracy, op.cit., pp.19.

45

Ivi., pp.24.

46

(33)

33

and usually their purpose it that of uniting the beliefs of a nation and direct them, consciously or unconsciously, to a certain path.

Totalitarian ideology however is based on the destruction of the previous state of things and the reconstruction that would follow. It also implies the acceptance of violence, as it is considered to be a necessary and inevitable means for achieving the final result. Friedrich and Brzezinski define it as “a

reasonable coherent body of ideas concerning practical means of how totally to change and reconstruct a society by force, or violence, based upon an all-inclusive or total criticism of what is wrong with the existing and antecedent society”.47

The main idea is therefore to destruct and reconstruct the pillars of the society; it is also a utopian ideology, as it seeks a total destruction and reconstruction. According to the same authors, totalitarian ideology is composed of a few important elements: symbolism, myth and a stereotyped image of an enemy. To what regards the first one, symbolism, this was used in order to compete with the rival ideologies and they represent the essence of that particular ideology`s struggle. We therefore have the hammer and sickle of Soviet Russia, which represents the fight of the workers and peasants to construct a new society for and through the proletariat. Then we have the swastika and the fasces, and they both come from a mythical past of each country, from an ancient tribal and barbaric world.

The second element is also common to all the three models of totalitarianism discussed before. Myths play an important role in totalitarianism, as they represent a base from which the ideology started to develop itself, and it offers a lesson for future events. A myth is a sort of tale based on past events , but loaded with meaning and significance that reinforces the power and authority

47

(34)

34

of current leaders in their specific fight. There is the more general and universal myth of Soviet Russia that states that all its history was based on class warfare, thus it was transformed into the proletariat revolution; there`s the Fascism myth, based on the grandeur of Italy, representing the center of civilization and the Nazi’s myth of “the German mission”, to control the world and reshape it according to Hitler`s idea.

The last element was more predominant in some than in others, but surely common to all the above mentioned countries. The face of the enemy took various forms and shapes, representing generally certain classes of people, not a specific person. From the Jews in the case of Nazis, to the bourgeois in the case of Fascist, the traitors or Trotskyist and also the American nation in the case of Soviets.

2.3.2. Single mass party/leader

One of the first things that comes to mind when we think about a totalitarian regime is the image of a leader that holds the absolute power. If we take the three prototypes that we considered in this presentation, it is clear for us that Mussolini, Stalin and Hitler were the absolute rulers of their countries, which were supported by a massive propaganda and portrayed as possessing above human capabilities.

Some scholars argued, at the beginning of this phenomenon, that it was actually the party not the leader that held the ultimate power. We will see how this statement is wrong, as the totalitarian leaders indeed had (most) control of the power, but this power was gained with the help of their party, which the leader commanded.

(35)

35

A salient feature of these totalitarian leaders is, as described by Max Weber, their charisma. According to Weber, this charismatic trait actually stands for

“a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities.”48 This is what makes these leaders appear as destined leader and have an extraordinary influence on a large majority of the people.

But this charisma does not just happen, as it is carefully prepared, using manipulation, in order to silence the opponents and assure the unanimity of voices that support their success as a victorious leader. This ultimately assures mass support and creates the image of an infallible and invincible leader.

Another important observation to make is that “the totalitarian dictator is

both ruler and high priest”.49

This means that it is the leader himself that

interprets the doctrine upon which the movement is based on; the continuation of his ideology is a sign of maintenance of his dictatorship.

Of course, his power is maintained also through the mechanism of bureaucratization; totalitarian regimes provide excellent examples of how the power is concentrated at the top. This mechanism doesn`t exist right from the beginning, is put into action once the leader gains power. The leader then proceeds with consolidating that power, with the help of his ento urage that will expect some kind of advantages in exchange. Many times the leader will provide a fake image of a democratic structure, but that is all an illusion, as it is clear how the whole power is concentrated in his hands. This entourage of the leader is composed of the members of the single party and, as we mentioned before, it is the base and the tool of the leader. It is the leader that

48

Leonard Schapiro, Totalitarianism, op.cit., pp. 21.

49

(36)

36

decides the functioning of the party and holds complete influence in directing it according to his will.

This kind of party is completely different from what we expect from a party in democratic regimes. The recruitment of the members is done in a completely different manner, being based more on a club structure of being faithful to the purpose of the party. The expulsion of the members that do not obey the party ideology is decided by the leader and it is not judicially punishable, like in the case of democratic regimes. The single party is very active in mobilizing force the citizens, with or without brute force, focusing especially on the youth. The indoctrination should happen from an early age in order to assure future support for the regime and for eventually finding a future leader. Thus, the party has a central role in recruiting future party members and training the younger generation in the beliefs of the regime. We could conclude by saying that the party does not represent a corporate existence on its own, as it is totally depended on their leaders. Just like

Mussolini said, the party and the citizens should “Believe, obey, fight”. 50

2.3.3. System of terror

The general and ever-present atmosphere of a totalitarian dictatorship is that of terror. It can work in various ways and it can manifest itself more directly or subconsciously, but its purpose is always that of obtaining conformity and obedience. The result will be a sense of insecurity, anxiety and weak physic state, which leads to a situation in which people are easy to manipulate.

50

(37)

37

Totalitarianism is based on the concept of revolution. Destroying the old is necessary in order to construct the new future. Once the leader of a single party gains power, his purpose will be that of expanding it as much as possible and all his methods are justified in the name of creating the new state.

But because totalitarianism is based on the rejection of all that the old regime represented and completely changing all the segments of society, it is bound to meet opposition and non-adherence. This is why terror is an essential tool in the hands of a totalitarian regime, as it prevents the development of opposition, through extreme manifestation of oppression. Violence in its many ways will be used and even considered necessary for the achievement of the final goal of new regime. The initial purpose of terror is that of eliminating the state enemies, but it is then extended to other various factions of society. This is considered to be necessary by the state apparatus, as some opponents might react in front of such an aggressive form of terror, and that is intolerable. Another feature of totalitarianism, that is complementary to terror in the view of Friedrich and Brzezinski, is unanimity: “…passion for unanimity

makes the totalitarians insist on the assent of the entire population to the regime`s outlook and activities”.51

Unanimity is crucial for a totalitarian

leader because it justifies its actions, by being supported by the majority of the population and hiding behind this massive consensus.

A further consequence of unanimity is the mass movement it creates. Everybody must be part of it and as such it becomes the normal thing to do. The ones that do not want to take part of it will become outcasts, pariahs of society and must be liquidated. Unanimity is therefore a source of strength for the regime because, when presented with the above mentioned situation, the

51

(38)

38

majority will prefer to be part of the mass rather than being subject to various forms of violence.

2.3.4. Monopoly on the army

To what regards the armed forces, the totalitarian regime seeks to encompass them totally as well. That is to say, the goal is that of subjecting the military to the movement and the party, to integrate them into the totalitarian structure. Consequently, the military would become a branch of the party, supporting its policies in the same way as the secret police.

However, as it usually happens with theory, this scheme proved to be different in practice. The army was not totally engulfed by the regimes both in Nazi and Fascist regimes, and this was most probably because both Mussolini and Hitler came upon an already established and professional army, that proved to be more difficult to indoctrinate. The situation was different in Soviet Russia, as the tsarist army was disintegrated and there was the need to organize a new one. The new army was then infiltrated with party representative, secret police agents and so on, and this allowed Stalin to be more successful with indoctrinating the army.

2.3.5. Monopoly on the media

The system of terror and the propaganda manifested in a totalitarian regime greatly influences the communication means of the country. Control over education, the press, TV, radio and on other modern technological methods of

(39)

39

the time was a way of further indoctrinating people in a way that guaranteed their belief in the totalitarian ideology and its goals. This almost complete monopoly on the mass-media is another dominant characteristic of a totalitarian regime, as it also distinguishes it from an autocratic rule.

The mass-media becomes a property of the government. Even if a few private ownerships still exist, they are under complete control of the state, and everything they present must be in accordance with the state ideology. In this way there is no possible means of expressing personal opinions, even less criticism in respect to the regime, and if someone would dare to do so they would automatically be condemned as enemies and executed.

The methods of controlling everything presented by the media were extremely intrusive. The famous book of George Orwell “1984” perfectly depicts the situation of the time: “Big Brother is watching you”. It was a state of permanent surveillance, with no privacy whatsoever, not even in one’s own home. The `Big Brother`, which is to say the state, used all the means available at the time to spy on everybody, from wiretapping to opening the private mails. Everything was allegedly done in order to prevent counterrevolutionary plots that could be carried out by the enemies of the state.

In a context like this, the only possible way to express a free opinion was `word of the mouth`, but not even this was safe as there were regime spies everywhere. The statement of Giovanni Gentile describes perfectly the belief of the decision makers of the time “…it is impossible to be fascists in politics

and non-fascists in schools, non-fascist in our families, non-fascists in our daily occupations.”52

52

Riferimenti

Documenti correlati

Policies fostering the second pillar First, the institutional framework for pension funds and private insurance for old age has been reinforced as follows: France has introduced in

Here it is shown that, in the context of the cultural Cold War between the Unites States and the Soviet Union, the USIS cultural centers, the American

Even with their coverage under the 1964 Voting Rights Act which, among other things, provided access to the ballot in native languages, Native Americans continue to experience

prokaryotic and fungal structure was heavily influenced by the interaction of tillage and N fertilization: the prokaryotic community structure of the

Lorsque la préservation de cette identité devint un aspect superficiel, en raison de la progression des processus d’intégration entre la population romaine et les différentes

As for the top coupling to photons, although measurements of the top charge [120] and of the inclusive t¯t γ cross section [121] are available, with the results being in agreement

[A stampa in Incastella mento, popolamento e signoria rurale tra Piemonte meridionale e Liguria. 7-12 © dell’autore – Distribuito in formato digitale da “Reti

Le ragioni stanno sicuramente nell’intricata situazione della Chiesa romana nei secoli che vanno dalla prima metà dell’undicesimo secolo alla seconda metà del Duecento, nella