The vast majority of people are well versed in concepts such as democracy and dictatorship. Ask a resident of the most remote village with a secondary education about this, and he will easily give definitions of the words mentioned and indicate the difference between them. But not everyone, even a very educated individual, will be able to clearly explain how an authoritarian regime differs from a totalitarian one. For many people, both words are synonymous. However, this is not the case, and in this article we will talk about this in detail.

Formulations

Authoritarianism(authoritarian regime) is a phenomenon the essence of which is the concentration of power within one group of like-minded people or in the hands of one person. Any serious opposition to power is impossible or is merely decorative. However, in non-political areas of state life (culture, private life, economics and a number of other areas), free expression of personality and creativity is possible. The main rule is that this relative freedom does not affect the current government in a negative way.

By the way, usually any authoritarian regime sooner or later comes to the format of a one-man dictatorship, even if it began with the power of a certain group of people. States with an authoritarian system have always existed in large numbers. Today is no exception, for example: Morocco, Saudi Arabia are prominent representatives of absolutist monarchies; military regimes of the recent past - General Peron in Argentina, Chile led by Pinochet.

Totalitarian The regime can be figuratively called the “son of authoritarianism,” since practically it is a further stage of its (the authoritarian regime’s) development. In a totalitarian state, there is always one person in power who has the rights of “god”, and it does not matter what he is called - dictator, king, leader, Fuhrer or general secretary. Although outwardly there may be some semblance of collective management. A striking example is the Central Committee of the CPSU in our recent past, where all real power was in fact concentrated in the hands of the party secretary general.

Under totalitarianism, the authorities strive for full control over all spheres of social life, right down to thoughts. Any dissent, an opinion different from the “royal” one, is considered a crime against the state and is punished by the authorities, often with extreme cruelty. Classic representatives of totalitarianism are considered to be the political regimes of Adolf Hitler in Germany, Joseph Stalin in the USSR and Benito Mussolini in Italy, and this is not a complete list.

Let us give two typical examples characterizing these political regimes.

Germany, Germany above all

In the middle of the 20th century, the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) came to power in broken and devastated Germany (after defeat in World War I). In the first few years, the National Socialist government was an authoritarian rule whose main goal was to boost the economy and strengthen the military power of the state. However, very quickly power was concentrated in the hands of one person - the Fuhrer (leader) of the party, Adolf Hitler. From this moment on, the stage of rapid degeneration of authoritarianism into totalitarianism began. Interestingly, the period of authoritarian rule itself was so vague and blurred that historians usually mention it in passing, as a fact not worthy of serious scientific research.

The widespread and violent inculcation of Nazi ideology began, the creation of a powerful police-ideological apparatus for total control over German citizens, living not only on the territory of the Reich, but also outside its borders. Almost everything possible and impossible was regulated and controlled in the country. Culture, medicine, sports - all areas of human activity came under strict, vigilant supervision. Germany turned into a well-oiled machine, where every cog knew its place and its task. Fortunately, this monster did not last long, but it brought a lot of trouble to all of humanity.

It's raining in Santiago

In 1973, on September 11, a military revolt led by General Augusto Pinochet began with this code phrase in Chile. The mutiny was bloody and successful. A military junta reigned in the South American republic for many years. However, Pinochet's regime cannot in any way be called totalitarian. Yes, it was a dictatorship; yes, a group of military men has completely arrogated to themselves the right to control the fate of an entire country; Yes, any attempts at resistance were brutally suppressed. But at the same time, complete freedom was given to the economy. The green light has been turned on for private businesses. Everything that benefited the state was allowed. Even the term “Chilean miracle” appeared. There is now much debate about whether the Chilean economic model was effective or whether it was an ordinary “pyramid” that eventually collapsed. However, this is not what our article is about. The main thing remains the fact that the government did not interfere in business, economics, medicine, sports, which is completely impossible under a totalitarian regime.

Comparison. Final verdict.

Ideology

A totalitarian regime needs a clear and comprehensive ideology. It is required to justify the crimes very often committed by the “leaders-Führers” against their own people. It must provide a justification for crimes that are often committed against other peoples. It is needed to zombify people in the right way. Without ideology, such a political system will not last long.

Opposition

People who think differently do not like any of the described regimes. However, authoritarianism allows for opposition if it does not directly threaten the existing order. Such opponents are called “pocket opposition.” In most cases, these are figures who in their youth sincerely wanted to “turn the world upside down,” but over time, the authorities proved to them the futility of fighting against it. And the former “shakers of the foundations” quietly and peacefully switched to supporting the ruling political regime, regularly holding harmless protests and casting their voices on command from above.

The totalitarian regime has a completely different attitude towards such comrades. The idea that anyone could say anything against the existing “party line” infuriates the regime. Any “troublemaker” is immediately punished, and very often with extreme cruelty - “so that others will be discouraged.” Therefore, the emergence of an opposition, even a “pocket” one, is impossible under totalitarianism. She simply won't have time to grow up.

Liberty

And here both modes are very similar. However, there is a difference between an authoritarian regime and a totalitarian regime in this matter, and quite a significant one.

Authoritarianism allows a certain independence of the individual in private life and in areas that are in no way related to the politics and orders established by the authorities. This applies primarily to economics, sports, medicine and some other areas of human activity. However, culture and spiritual spheres are already subject to strict censorship for criticism of the existing government.

The totalitarian regime keeps everything under strict control. Its very essence does not allow an ordinary citizen to go beyond the strictly established rules and procedures. Everything must be strictly scheduled and regulated. The regime raises uninitiated and stupid executors of its, sometimes the most monstrous, orders.

Leader

Leaders are present in both places. However, in an authoritarian format, the role of the leader is not as great as in a totalitarian regime. The main field of activity of authoritarianism is politics, the political structure of the state. And, since the “tsar” does not interfere in the private lives of citizens, his influence on their minds is not too strong - accordingly, the attitude of fellow citizens towards their leader is much more critical than that of his opponent (under totalitarianism). There are cases when citizens sincerely despised their leader and laughed at him. By the way, this phenomenon also occurs in the post-Soviet space, where some republics of the collapsed USSR are typical authoritarian formations, whose leaders are not particularly respected by the people.

In a totalitarian state, the leader is a completely different hypostasis. It is not in vain that we used this religious term, because often the leaders of such states are deified during their lifetime. Suffice it to recall Stalin and Hitler. A mandatory feature of the leaders of totalitarianism is strong charisma. The people must sincerely love their leader, the Fuhrer, and believe in him. This is precisely what the construction of totalitarian power is based on. Remember any totalitarian state. Always in the first act of a totalitarian performance, there is a strong, authoritative leader on stage who lays the foundations for future absolute power and takes control of the entire country, literally and figuratively. Subsequently, the leaders begin to weaken and degenerate, as a result of which the final scene for all such regimes is the same - complete collapse.

Law

Law and order are the key to the well-being of any state. Unfortunately, this axiom is very poorly understood by both regimes. True, the authoritarian system even more or less maintains the rule of law in areas that do not affect its direct interests - we have already mentioned them more than once, so we will not repeat them. In the secret area for any authoritarian state - in the political system - the constitution and legal law take tenth place. The political interests of the ruling elite and its leader come first. And they are observed without any regard for the laws.

For lovers of totalitarianism, things are even worse. Here the law is nothing more than a screen, a haze covering absolute lawlessness. In any field, in any matter, if the authorities consider you a potential threat, you will be mercilessly crushed. Moreover, any, even the most monstrous decision will be covered up by ideology, fairy tales about a threat to the security of the state, the leader (favorite topic totalitarian regime). Torture, executions, kidnappings and murders of unwanted people - this is far from a complete arsenal of “legal” actions of the totalitarian system. Dismissal from work without the right to work, psychiatric hospitalization, expulsion from the country, deprivation of all material and social benefits are considered almost a democratic influence on the persecuted. A person subjected to such punishment should be happy and thank the authorities for their gentleness.

The actions of such regimes in the executive part of the legislation have long been aptly described as state terrorism. Well, let’s summarize all of the above into one short table.

Political regimes: democratic, totalitarian, authoritarian

The concept of “political regime” appeared in scientific circulation in the second half of the 20th century. This is a phenomenon political life and the political system of society as a whole. Along with the concept of a political system, the concept of “political regime” is used to clarify the nature and manner of the relationship between government, society and citizens. The term “mode” is translated as control order.

A political regime is a system of methods, forms and means of exercising political (state) power in society.

The political regime is determined by the form of government. However, the concept of “political regime” is broader than the concept of “state regime”, because includes not only methods and techniques for the implementation of political power on the part of the state, but also on the part of political parties and public organizations. The category “political regime” characterizes how civil society and the state relate and interact, what is the scope of rights and freedoms of individuals, social groups and the real possibilities for their implementation.

The types of political regime are influenced by many factors: the essence and form of the state, the nature of legislation, powers government agencies, level and standards of living, state of the economy, historical traditions of the country.

Depending on the characteristics of state power, two types of polar regimes are distinguished - democratic and non-democratic. Non-democratic political regimes are usually divided into authoritarian and totalitarian.

Consequently, the political literature identifies three main types of political regimes: democratic, totalitarian and authoritarian.

Let us consider each of these types of political regimes, highlighting them character traits.

Democratic regime.

The term “democracy” is used so often that it loses its clearly defined and solid content. As domestic political scientists note, the concept of “democracy” is one of the most numerous and unclear concepts of modern political science.

The democratic regime has become widespread in many countries of the world. The word "democracy" is translated from Greek as "power of the people."

The birthplace of democracy is the city-state of Athens, 5th century. BC. The central political institution was the Assembly, open to all adult male citizens (women, slaves and foreigners were excluded).

But ancient Greek thinkers called democracy the worst form of government, because was very low level culture of citizens, which allowed rulers to manipulate “democracy.” Democracy began to be perceived negatively, and this term was forced out of political use.

New stage in the understanding of democracy, it developed in modern times, in the 17-18 centuries. in Western Europe and the USA. A new nature of relations between authorities and subjects appeared, institutions of civil society and demands for social equality of individuals appeared.

A democratic political regime is the guarantee of proclaimed rights and freedoms, strong legality and order.

Society must be freed from arbitrary arrests, especially political reasons, and the court must be independent and obey only the law. No democratic government can be carried out in conditions of arbitrary power and lawlessness.

Basic principles of a democratic regime:

1. Recognition of the people as the source of power in the state.

That is, it is the people who own the constituent, constitutional power in the state, and the people also have the right to participate in the development and adoption of laws through referendums.

2. Participation of citizens in the formation of government bodies, making political decisions and exercising control over government bodies.

That is, the source of power is citizens who express their will in elections.

3. The priority of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen over the rights of the state.

That is, state authorities are called upon to protect human rights and freedoms (the right to life, freedom and security; to equality before the law; to non-interference in personal and family life).

4. Possession by citizens of a large volume of rights and freedoms, which are not only proclaimed, but also legally assigned to them.

5. Political equality of all citizens.

Those. Every person has the right to be elected to government bodies and to participate in the electoral process. No one should have a political advantage.

6. The rule of law in all spheres of society.

7. Separation of powers.

8. Political pluralism (plurality), multi-party system.

9. Freedom of speech.

10. Power in the state is based on persuasion, not coercion.

Of course, democracy is not an ideal phenomenon, but, despite all its shortcomings, it is the best and fairest form of political regime of all those known so far.

Totalitarian regime.

The complete opposite of a democratic regime is a totalitarian regime, or totalitarianism. The term “totalitarianism” translated from Latin means “whole”, “whole”, “complete”.

Totalitarianism is a political regime in which there is complete control and strict regulation by the state of all spheres of society and the life of every person, which is ensured by force, including the means of armed violence.

The term “totalitarianism” was introduced into the political lexicon to describe Mussolini’s movement in 1925.

But its ideological origins go back to ancient times. Plato's works contain totalitarian views on the state. An ideal state is characterized by unconditional subordination of the individual and class, state ownership of land, houses, and even the socialization of wives and children, as well as a single religion.

Representatives of utopian socialism of the 16th-18th centuries also had many totalitarian ideas. T. Mora, Campanella, Fourier, etc. However, the mass dissemination and practical implementation of the idea of ​​totalitarianism received only in the 20th century.

The main signs of totalitarianism:

1. Centralized leadership and management in the socio-economic sphere.

2. Recognition of the leading role of one party and the implementation of its dictatorship.

3. The dominance of official ideology in the spiritual sphere and its forced imposition on members of society.

4. Concentration of the media in the hands of the party and the state.

5. Merging of the party and state apparatus, control executive bodies elected.

6. Arbitrariness in the form of state terror and mass repression.

Types of totalitarianism:

1. Communist - existed in the USSR and other socialist states. Nowadays, to one degree or another, it exists in Cuba, the DPRK, Vietnam, and China.

2. Fascism - first established in Italy in 1922. It also existed in Spain, Portugal, Chile.

3. National Socialism - arises in Germany in 1933. It is related to fascism.

An authoritarian regime is a political regime in which partial opportunities have been created for the expression of social interests, and relations between the state and the individual are built more on coercion than persuasion, without the use of armed violence.

1. Monopoly of power, absence of political opposition.

2. The autonomy of the individual and society in non-political spheres is preserved.

3. It is possible to use punitive measures in domestic policy.

4. Imposed unanimity and obedience.

Traditional authoritarian regimes are based on various cults, where social stratification is shallow, traditions and religion are strong. These are countries Persian Gulf: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, as well as Brunei, Oman, etc.

In these countries there is no separation of powers, no political competition, power is concentrated in the hands of a narrow group of people.

Dictatorship in its authoritarian form has been the most common type of political regime in the world until modern times. It played a certain role in the modernization of a number of countries, in preparing their transition to a democratic system. A number of signs of totalitarianism can be found in ancient Eastern and medieval despotism: the absence of guaranteed private property, the complete dependence of citizens on the will of the ruler and other characteristic features of the “Asian mode of production.” But totalitarianism became a true phenomenon in the 20th century.

Today in Russia the concepts of “authoritarianism” and “totalitarianism”, borrowed from Western political science, are widely used to explain certain periods of our national history, and to explain the development of other countries. These categories are most often used by transposing (often arbitrarily) the thoughts of Western researchers and transferring their assessments to our soil.

Authoritarianism (Latin autoritas - influence, power) is an undemocratic political regime, acting as a form of political power that is concentrated in the hands of one person or in one government body, as a result of which the role of other bodies or branches of government is reduced, first of all, the role of representative institutions.

Authoritarianism, when consistently implemented as the power of one person, one person, can turn into autocracy (Greek autocrateja - autocracy, autocracy), i.e. into a form of government with unlimited, uncontrolled sovereignty of one person. This is exactly how the despotisms of the Ancient East, the empires of Rome, Byzantium, and the absolute monarchies of the Middle Ages and the New Age were governed.

• 1) concentration of power in the hands of one person or one - most often executive - branch of government and its institutions;
• 2) the role of the representative branch of government and its bodies has been significantly narrowed;
• 3) minimizing opposition and autonomy of various political organizations (associations, parties, unions, institutions), a sharp curtailment of democratic political procedures (political debates, mass rallies and demonstrations, restrictions on the press, etc.).

Totalitarianism (lat. totalitas - integrity, completeness) is a non-democratic political regime characterized by general - total - control of those in power over all aspects of public life: economics, politics, culture, over all aspects of human life - both public and personal life.

In modern everyday consciousness, totalitarianism often seems to be a monstrous modern Leviathan, not allowing citizens not only to live, but simply to breathe freely, and the totalitarian leader is an outright dictator, whose atrocities could not be recognized only by lackeys and complete idiots. Another thing is an authoritarian, civilized dictator, like Charles de Gaulle, his main concern is public order and ensuring the prosperity of the country.

What really are the similarities and differences between authoritarianism and totalitarianism? We must immediately emphasize the main thing: both political regimes are anti-people and undemocratic. The following comparative characteristics can be given.

Authoritarianism is established contrary to the opinion of the majority, while totalitarianism is established with the most active participation of the masses, which is why it is sometimes called “dictatorship.” mass movements" It was they who brought Mussolini and Hitler to power.

Under authoritarianism, civil society remains autonomous to a certain extent, although it is not capable of exerting a serious influence on the state. Under totalitarianism, the civil society that has begun to form is purposefully and completely subordinate to the state.

Under authoritarianism, the political leader does not always try to “flirt” with the people, but, on the contrary, often emphasizes his superiority. At the same time, the people often view the leader as a usurper and do not at all strive for intimacy with him. The totalitarian leader constantly emphasizes his unity with the people. The enemy of an authoritarian leader is perceived only as his enemy, and the enemy of a totalitarian leader is perceived as an enemy of the people. A totalitarian leader, as a rule, is a favorite of the crowd; it is enough to recall the enthusiastic attitude of millions of Italians towards their Duce - Benito Mussolini, or the cliquey worship of Hitler by the majority of representatives of the German nation, not to mention the monstrous cult of Stalin in the USSR.

Under authoritarianism, those in power provide a person with certain opportunities for self-realization in civil society and prevent active independent political activity citizens. Under totalitarianism, in conditions of extreme politicization and ideologization of all human life, the political regime constantly tries to keep people in a state of political tension and even exaltation.

One of the key problems that arises when studying non-democratic regimes is elucidating the reasons for the emergence of totalitarian orders in the most seemingly different conditions: in Italy of the 20s, in Germany of the 30s and the Soviet Union of the Stalin era. In Western political science, the book most often cited is Hannah Arendt's seminal book in this regard, The Origin of Totalitarianism (1951). But the book focuses on the Jewish question and anti-Semitism, which does not reveal the main reasons for the emergence of totalitarianism.

In educational literature, it is not often recalled that one of the first to thoroughly outline the conditions for the emergence and signs of totalitarianism was the outstanding representative of the Russian diaspora, I.A. Ilyin (1883 - 1954). He laid three criteria at the basis of totalitarianism:

• 1) monopoly on property,
• 2) monopoly on power,
• 3) monopoly on the socialization of citizens (on their assimilation social experience). Two other signs:
• 4) the desire to realize a utopian idea
• 5) ideological messianism - together with the first three they form “incomplete totalitarianism.”

“Complete”, from the point of view of I.A. Ilyin, totalitarianism has other characteristics: unlimited violence against citizens, the cult of the leader, anti-democracy, material and spiritual self-isolation.

There are usually three types of totalitarianism.

Bolshevik (communist) type. Most often it is associated with the era of Stalinism. Here everything, including economic life, is under total control. Private property has been eliminated, which means that the basis of individualism and autonomy of members of society has been destroyed.

The political regime of Mao Zedong in China is close to this type. It is characteristic that the tightening of this regime coincided with the period of transition from totalitarianism to authoritarianism in the USSR. In fact, relations between the CPSU and the CPC were interrupted. China found itself practically in a state of political isolation, which was a prerequisite for the tightening of totalitarianism.

Fascist type. Fascism in Italy was established in 1922. He was characterized by the desire to revive the Great Roman Empire. It was characterized by racism and chauvinism, and was based on the cult of the leader, strong merciless power. Paradoxically, Italy remained a monarchy during this period, and Mussolini sent occasional reports to King Victor Immanuel III.

Nazi type. National Socialism established itself in Germany in 1933 and had features similar to both the fascist and Bolshevik regimes. The goal was the dominance of the Aryan race, the German nation was proclaimed the highest nation.

A special form of authoritarian regimes are military regimes established as a result of military coups. This practice is especially common in developing countries. During the 20th century, a military coup attempt was carried out in 81 countries, in some countries several times. In general, they are associated with the instability of the socio-economic structures of developing countries, with the struggle of various social forces for power (in these countries, not only socio-economic, but also tribal and clan differences often play a significant role). Often, the immediate cause of military coups is a threat to the privileged position of army officers or active interference of civilians in the affairs of the army.

The establishment of military regimes was most often not accompanied by economic development. However, in last decades In Latin America, military regimes of the so-called “new authoritarianism” are often established, the goal of which is to implement serious economic reforms in practice. An example of “new authoritarianism” is often cited as the military junta regime in Chile, established in 1973 after the democratic overthrow elected president Salvador Allende.

The line between totalitarianism and authoritarianism is fluid: the difference between them is only in the degree of control of the state over society (democracy is characterized by control of society over the state). Therefore, it is easier for totalitarianism to transform from authoritarianism than from democracy.

However, it is most easily born from anarchy, just as Hitler’s fascism emerged from the anarchy of the Weimar Republic. It was precisely this situation that Jaspers had in mind when he wrote that “freedom, if suddenly granted to a people unprepared by self-education, can not only lead to ochlocracy and, ultimately, to tyranny, but also, above all, contribute to the transfer of power to the hands of a random clique because people don’t know what they’re voting for.”

A political regime is a complex, multifaceted category, covering a number of dynamic aspects of the political life of society. This circumstance explains the possibility of classifying political regimes according to a variety of criteria. So, for example, in accordance with the principle of separation of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of power, one can distinguish between the regime of merger of powers and the regime of separation of powers; according to the status and role of the army in society - military and civilian regimes; by type of mentality, sociocultural complex - “Western” and “Eastern”; according to the nature of the relationship between the state and the church - theocratic (clerical) and secular regimes. The typology of political regimes is generally accepted, taking into account the peculiarities of interaction between the state and civil society, the degree of penetration of state power into other spheres of social reality and the private life of citizens. Based on these criteria, democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian types of regimes are distinguished. However, every really existing political regime represents a certain combination of two opposing principles of organizing social relations - authoritarianism and democracy. Authoritarian tendencies are expressed in the desire of state institutions for unilateral authority, to establish strict discipline and responsibility of citizens, and their unconditional submission to laws and orders power structures. Democracy, on the contrary, presupposes equality of parties, their agreement, freedom of choice and political pluralism in public life. As practice shows, the measure of the relationship between these tendencies does not remain constant and, moreover, does not always correspond to any “proportion” established by some theoretical scheme.

A scientific approach to the analysis of any type of political regime involves identifying the main classification criteria that make it possible to give a comprehensive description of it. A fairly complete picture of the phenomenon being studied can be obtained by calling:

socio-political groups whose interests are expressed by this regime;

methods of exercising political power chosen by the ruling circles;

the nature of the participation of the country's citizens in the government system, the conditions for the activity of the political opposition;

compliance with the principle of legality and protection of individual rights;

ideological design of power relations.

Guided by the above diagram, we can characterize the main types of political regimes. It should be taken into account that the “ideal” models obtained in this way contain only the most essential aspects of the reflected reality.

In political science, there are four main types of political regimes:

totalitarian - all-pervasive, all-subjugating;

liberal - free, providing civil rights and freedoms;

democratic - involving the masses in the processes of political governance.

In practice, the method of exercising state power most often appears in such a symbiotic manifestation: an authoritarian-totalitarian regime; liberal democratic government.

In contrast to the emotional assessments inherent in journalism, modern political science uses the concepts of “authoritarianism” and “totalitarianism” in relation to analytical constructs, each of which corresponds to a different degree of dominance of authoritarian principles of organizing power-political relations. Thus, the absolute predominance of these trends, when the state actually completely “absorbs” society, interfering unlimitedly not only in the area of ​​social reality, but also in the private life of citizens, is distinctive feature totalitarian regime.

Under a totalitarian regime, state power is strictly centralized and actually belongs to the apparatus of the ruling party, power organization or military junta. The head of state and government - usually for life - becomes an unaccountable leader who concentrates in his hands the highest legislative, executive, and sometimes judicial functions. The country's population is practically excluded from participation in the state government system, since representative bodies are either abolished or formed in violation of the principle of universal suffrage; in Hitler's Germany, for example, some of the Reichstag deputies could be appointed directly by the Fuhrer, while the rest were “elected” by the Nazi party. Authorities of autonomous entities and local self-government are replaced by “emissaries” appointed from above or lose their independence.

With the establishment of a totalitarian regime ruling circles They not only do not hide, but also openly demonstrate various methods of violence, sharply and decisively suppressing any attempts to resist the current course. The activities and interference in all spheres of public life by security forces - the army, police and security agencies - are significantly intensifying. In the economic sphere, as a rule, monopoly control by the state prevails, which, however, does not mean a complete refusal to carry out reforms, as well as temporary and minor concessions to entrepreneurs and employees in the private sector. State-owned enterprises may use a system of non-economic coercion.

“Ideal” totalitarianism is most characterized by a one-party system or the existence under the strict control of several parties and “official” trade unions that support the regime. Activity opposition parties and movements is strictly prohibited, so they are forced either to remain deep underground, using illegal methods of struggle, or to act in exile. Opponents of the regime are subject to police terror - in the sense that even formal legal procedures are usually not required to imprison them, concentration camps or physical destruction.

A characteristic feature of a totalitarian regime is the abolition or indefinite suspension of the constitution. At the same time, decrees of the head of state, orders of structures executive power or army directives acquire the force of law. The democratic rights and freedoms of citizens are significantly limited, the interests of the individual are subordinated to the “higher” interests of the nation, society or the implementation of any ideological doctrine.

Authoritarian regimes, unlike totalitarian ones, often use limited political pluralism, which is expressed in the fact that authoritarian-minded authorities, being unable to deprive large masses of citizens of the right to vote, resort to selective bans or temporary suspension of the activities of certain parties, public associations, and trade unions. .

Without allowing strong opposition political activity, authoritarian regimes retain a certain autonomy of the individual and society in non-political spheres. Under authoritarianism, for example, there may be no strict control by the authorities over production, education, and culture. Intervention in the economy is usually limited, aimed at supporting national capital, and promoting economic development.

A special type of authoritarianism is represented by the political regimes in some states of the Arab East, where today the traditional form of government is preserved - an absolute or dualistic monarchy. Such monarchies are characterized by the absence or decorative nature of representative bodies, the concentration of all state power in the hands of the monarch, who occupies the throne in the established order of succession to the throne. The monarch has a monopoly right to publish laws, appoints and dismisses officials at his own discretion, and manages the funds of the state treasury. At the same time, the country's population has virtually no influence on lawmaking and does not participate in control over management.

An authoritarian-totalitarian regime can take the form of a dictatorship of some classes, social forces (a variety - junta, military dictatorship), and also act as a cult of personality. What this regime has in common is the alienation of citizens and their organizations from independent participation in politics; the relationship between society and the state takes on a perverted form - society is completely and completely subordinate to the state.

An authoritarian-totalitarian regime, objectively being the antipode of democracy, always acts as its opponent, although in words - in programs, statements, appeals - it widely uses democratic phraseology, slogans of freedom and universal equality. At the same time, we should point out a very common, but always veiled fact: no one ever openly substantiates the naturalness and legitimacy of totalitarianism. Quite the opposite - everything is covered up by the standards of democracy, its demands.

Other principles of the organization and functioning of state power underlie the liberal, democratic regime. Moreover, if the main characteristic of a liberal political approach is freedom for citizens and society in crucial spheres of life, not to mention private life, then in a democratic approach the most significant thing is the involvement of the population and citizens in public affairs through their varied participation in the exercise of power. And, of course, in accordance with this, the state uses a completely different arsenal of means and methods in its activities. Openness and transparency, characteristic of a democratic state, create completely new opportunities for the formation and renewal of government bodies, and for the development of internal and foreign policy taking into account the interests of man and society.

Democratic regimes are most common in economically developed countries, with strong traditions of democracy, liberalism and pluralism, and an activist political culture.

Characteristic features of democratic regimes:

recognition of the people as the source of power;

election of the main government bodies and officials, their accountability to voters;

the control and responsibility of state bodies formed by appointment to elected institutions;

proclamation of fundamental democratic rights and freedoms;

equality of all citizens before the law;

the legal existence of pluralism in society, the presence of a developed two- or multi-party system;

government system based on the principle of “separation of powers”;

creating the necessary conditions for the development of the “middle class”, which serves as the social basis of a democratic regime.

In modern conditions, the model of representative, pluralistic democracy is very common. In accordance with it, society is dominated by powerful organized groups, and the government plays mainly the role of an intermediary between them and, in addition, often itself acts as one of such groups. Each group acts in its own interests, and the government facilitates coordination and compromise to satisfy the desires of the most powerful groups as fully as possible.

Modern democratic regimes are far from ideal. They do not exclude the possibility of using authoritarian methods of power in one or another “extreme” situation. Any democratic state retains an apparatus of coercion and violence that can be used to suppress mass anti-government protests. However, in a developed democracy, such actions by the authorities are quite rare. Typically, the relationship between state institutions and civil society is based on the understanding of the fact that the fate of the “people’s representatives” ultimately depends on the will of the voters, and in order to obtain or maintain existing powers of power, it is necessary to enlist the support of the majority of the population, demonstrating the advantages not only his program, but also his personal qualities in comparison with his opponents. The tactics of political maneuvering come to the fore, the success of which largely depends on the ability of the authorities to play on public opinion, find appropriate ways to relieve social tension and, despite concessions in search of achieving one or another compromise, control the economic and political situation in the country.

Political and ideological pluralism, which in a democratic regime is realized through a legal, legally enshrined multi-party system, contributes to the fact that the ruling party or coalition is constantly in the field of constructive criticism by supporters of alternative approaches and worldviews, and in the event of an appropriate expression of the will of the people based on the results of voting in In the next elections, powers of power will be “softly” transferred to opposition forces ready to exercise them.

The most important principle of the political regime is the constitutional and other legislative consolidation of the basic human, political and socio-economic rights and freedoms of citizens, which primarily include the right to life, the right to property, the right to participate in political activities by voting or holding an elected office , the right to work and education, freedom of speech, press, assembly, as well as freedom of conscience, which implies the right of everyone to profess any religion or adhere to atheistic beliefs. At the same time, the law also provides for restrictions designed to prevent the transformation of democratic freedoms into permissiveness. It is obvious that there cannot be complete freedom of the press: there is responsibility for disclosure in the press and other media mass media information containing state or military secrets, publication of deliberately false materials discrediting the honor and dignity of citizens and organizations. In order to protect the moral health of society, many countries have strict rules prohibiting the distribution of pornographic publications outside designated areas and the sale of this printed material to minors.

In modern democratic states Legislation establishes that citizens have certain rights and freedoms, but does not always determine how they will be implemented. The right to work enshrined in the constitution is not a guarantee against unemployment, and in order to enjoy freedom of speech or the press, you must have a certain amount of money to pay for airtime or publish an advertisement in the press, not to mention publishing your own newspaper. The media can not only promote the realization of the right to freedom of speech, but also act as one of the tools for influencing society in the interests of the most powerful social forces.

When we hear about an authoritarian political regime, most people perceive this concept as purely negative. It is common to confuse authoritarianism and totalitarianism. But are these concepts really identical? Or is there still a significant difference between them? Let's find out what an authoritarian regime is.

Definition of the term

An authoritarian political regime is a virtually unlimited form of power by one person or group of people while maintaining the appearance of some democratic institutions. It may also preserve some freedoms for the population in the economy, spiritual life or in another area, if these freedoms do not pose a threat to the regime itself.

Classification of political regimes

In order to understand the place of authoritarianism among other political regimes, you need to pay attention to their classification. There are many types of forms of government. Among them, three types dominate: authoritarian, totalitarian, and democratic political regimes. In addition, anarchy is separately distinguished, which is defined as anarchy.

Democratic regime in perfect shape characterized by maximum participation of the people in government and in the change of power. A totalitarian system, on the contrary, is marked by complete control of power over all areas of life and activity of citizens, who, in turn, do not take part in resolving state issues. Moreover, power is often actually usurped by one person or a group of people from a narrow circle.

An authoritarian regime is something between democratic and totalitarian. Many political scientists present it as a compromise version of these systems. We will talk further about the features of authoritarianism and its differences from other political regimes.

Differences between authoritarian and democratic regimes

The main difference between authoritarianism and democracy is that the people are actually removed from governing the country. Elections and referendums, if they are held, are purely formal in nature, since their result is obviously predetermined.

At the same time, under authoritarianism there can be pluralism, that is, a multi-party system, as well as the preservation of democratic institutions that continue to function, which creates the illusion that the country is governed by the people. This is what makes authoritarian and democratic political regimes similar.

Differences between authoritarianism and totalitarianism

The main difference is that under authoritarianism, the basis of power is the personal qualities of the leader or group of leaders who managed to seize the levers of government. Totalitarianism, on the contrary, is based on ideology. Often, totalitarian leaders are nominated by the ruling elite, which can even come to power through democratic means. Thus, under authoritarianism, the role of the leader is much higher than under totalitarianism. For example, an authoritarian regime may fall with the death of its leader, but the end of a totalitarian system can only be brought about by a general decline in the governance structure or military intervention by a third party.

As mentioned above, totalitarian and authoritarian regimes also differ in that the first often completely lacks democratic institutions, while under authoritarianism they can exist, although they have, by and large, a decorative function. Also, an authoritarian regime, unlike a totalitarian one, can allow the functioning of various political parties, and even moderate opposition. But, nevertheless, real forces that can harm the ruling regime, both under authoritarianism and totalitarianism, are prohibited.

In addition, these two systems are also united by the fact that they lack real democracy and the ability of the people to govern the state.

Signs of an authoritarian system

An authoritarian regime of power has a number of features that distinguish it from others political systems. They allow us to distinguish this type of management from other forms. government controlled existing in the world. Below we will analyze the main signs of an authoritarian regime.

One of the main features of this system is the form of government in the form of autocracy, dictatorship or oligarchy. This implies the actual administration of the state by one person or a limited group of persons. Access of ordinary citizens to this group either completely impossible or significantly limited. This actually means that government becomes beyond the control of the people. National elections to government bodies, if they take place, are purely nominal in nature, with a predetermined outcome.

An authoritarian regime is also distinguished by the monopolization of government by one person or a certain political force. This allows you to actually control and manage all branches of government - executive, legislative and judicial. Most often, it is representatives of the executive branch who usurp the functions of other structures. In turn, this fact leads to increased corruption at the top of society, since in fact the management and control bodies are represented by the same persons.

Signs of an authoritarian political regime are expressed in the absence of real opposition. The authorities may allow the presence of a “tame” opposition, which acts as a screen designed to testify to the democracy of society. But in fact, such parties, on the contrary, further strengthen the authoritarian regime, actually serving it. The same forces that are capable of actually resisting the authorities are not allowed to participate in the political struggle and are subject to repression.

There are signs of an authoritarian regime in the economic sphere. First of all, they are expressed in the control of people in power and their relatives over the country's largest enterprises. In the hands of these people is concentrated not only political power, but also management of financial flows aimed at their personal enrichment. A person who does not have connections in high circles, even if he has good business qualities, has no chance of becoming financially successful, since the economy is monopolized by those in power. However, these features of an authoritarian regime are not a mandatory attribute.

In turn, in an authoritarian society, the country's leadership and members of their families are actually above the law. Their crimes are hushed up and remain unpunished. The country's security forces and law enforcement agencies are thoroughly corrupt and are not under the control of society.

In addition, this system of power does not seek to completely control society. An authoritarian regime focuses on absolute political and significant economic control, and provides significant freedoms in the spheres of culture, religion and education.

The main method of governing a country, which is used when authoritarian regime- command and administrative.

It should be noted that in order to judge a management system as authoritarian, it is not necessary to have all of the above characteristics. A few of them are enough for this. At the same time, the existence of one of these signs does not automatically make the state authoritarian. In fact, there are no clear criteria by which to distinguish between authoritarianism and totalitarianism with democracy. But the presence in the state of most of the factors described above already serves as confirmation that the management system is authoritarian.

Classification of authoritarian regimes

Authoritarian systems in various countries may accept various forms, often outwardly different from each other. In this regard, it is customary to divide them into several typological types. Among them are the following:

• absolutist monarchy;
• sultanist regime;
• military-bureaucratic regime;
• racial democracy;
• corporate authoritarianism;
• post-totalitarian regimes;
• postcolonial regimes;
• socialist authoritarianism.

In the future, we will dwell in more detail on each of the types presented above.

Absolutist monarchy

This type of authoritarianism is inherent in modern absolute and dualistic monarchies. In such states, power is inherited. The monarch has either absolute powers to govern the country or weakly limited ones.

The main examples of this type of authoritarian regime are Nepal (until 2007), Ethiopia (until 1974), and modern states Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Morocco. Moreover last country is not an absolute monarchy, but a typical constitutional (dualistic) one. But, despite this, the power of the Sultan in Morocco is so strong that this country can be classified as an authoritarian state.

Sultanist regime

This type of authoritarian regime is so named because the power of the ruler in the countries where it is used is comparable to the power of medieval sultans. Officially, the position of the head of such states may have different names, but in most known cases they held the presidential post. In addition, under the sultanist regime, there is the possibility of transferring power by inheritance, although this is not enshrined in law. The most famous leaders of countries in which this type of authoritarian regime dominated were Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Rafael Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, Francois Duvalier in Haiti. The latter, by the way, managed to transfer power to his son Jean-Claude.

Sultanist regimes are characterized by the maximum concentration of power in one hand in comparison with other autocratic systems. Their distinguishing feature is the absence of ideology, the prohibition of a multi-party system, as well as absolute autocracy.

Military-bureaucratic regime

A distinctive feature of this type of authoritarian regime is the seizure of power in the country by a group of military officers through a coup. At first, all power is concentrated in the hands of the military, but later representatives of the bureaucracy are increasingly involved in management. In the future, this type of management may gradually take the path of democratization.

The main factors that lead to the establishment of military regimes are dissatisfaction with the existing government and the fear of revolution “from below.” It is the latter factor that subsequently influences the restriction of democratic freedoms and the right to choose. Preventing the intelligentsia, which is opposed to such a regime, from coming to power is his main task.

The most typical representatives of this type of authoritarianism are the regime of Nasser in Egypt, Pinochet in Chile, Peron in Argentina, and the juntas of 1930 and 1969 in Brazil.

Racial democracy

Despite the fact that the name of this type of authoritarianism contains the word “democracy,” this political regime provides freedoms and rights only to representatives of a certain nationality or race. Other nationalities are not allowed to participate in the political process, including through violence.

The most typical example of racial democracy is South Africa during the apartheid period.

Corporate authoritarianism

The corporate form of authoritarianism is considered its most typical type. It arises in societies with relatively developed economies, in which various oligarchic groups (corporations) come to power. In such a state system, there is practically no ideology, and the economic and other interests of the group that has come to power play a decisive role. As a rule, in states with corporate authoritarianism there is a multi-party system, but these parties cannot play a significant role in political life due to the apathy of society towards them.

This type of political regime has become most widespread in countries Latin America, in particular in Guatemala, in Nicaragua (until 1979), in Cuba during the reign of Batista. There were also examples of corporate authoritarianism in Europe. This regime manifested itself most clearly in Portugal during the reign of Salazar and in Spain during the dictatorship of Franco.

Post-totalitarian regimes

This is a special type of authoritarian regimes that is formed in societies moving along the path from totalitarianism to democracy. At the same time, the phase of authoritarianism is not at all necessary on this road, but it is inevitable in those former totalitarian countries where it was not quickly possible to build a full-fledged democratic society.

Post-totalitarian regimes are characterized by the concentration of significant economic assets in the hands of representatives of the former party nomenklatura and people close to them, as well as the military elite. Thus, they turn into an oligarchy.

Post-colonial regimes

Like post-totalitarian regimes, in many post-colonial countries authoritarianism is a phase on the path to democracy. True, the development of these states often stops at this stage for many decades. As a rule, this form of power is established in countries with poorly developed economies and imperfect political systems.

Socialist authoritarianism

This type of authoritarianism is manifested in the peculiarities of the development of socialist society in certain countries of the world. It is formed on the basis of a special perception of socialism within these states, which has nothing in common with so-called European socialism or real social democracy.

In states with this form of government, there is a one-party system and there is no legal opposition. Often, countries with socialist authoritarianism have a fairly strong leadership role. In addition, quite often socialism is combined with nationalism in a mild form.

Among modern countries socialist authoritarianism is most pronounced in Venezuela, Mozambique, Guinea, and Tanzania.

general characteristics

As you can see, an authoritarian regime is a rather ambiguous form of government with no clear boundaries for definition. Its place on the political map lies between the democratic and totalitarian systems. general characteristics An authoritarian regime can be described as a compromise between these two regimes.

Under an authoritarian regime, some freedoms are allowed in relation to members of society, but as long as they do not threaten the ruling elite. As soon as a threat begins to emanate from a particular force, political repression is applied against it. But, unlike a totalitarian society, these repressions are not massive in nature, but are applied selectively and narrowly.