Political Science For Dummies. Marcus A. Stadelmann
Читать онлайн книгу.
rel="nofollow" href="#ue07aeba3-88ee-5f84-a80d-fd10970ee792">Chapter 13), it has become virtually impossible to totally isolate a population and control its access to other news sources.
Control over the police: Government has to not only control the regular police to maintain law and order but also establish a secret police to control its population. This secret police has to instill a culture of fear into the average person so that he won’t question or turn against the regime. Everybody in the country needs to know the kind of punishment he’ll face if he questions or turns against the regime. Both the NKVD in the Soviet Union and the Gestapo in Germany performed this function. Mass killings and torture of dissidents was common, and every Russian and German knew the punishment for opposing the regime. In turn, opposition to both totalitarian regimes was minimal.
Control over the military: History has shown that most dictators are toppled by their own militaries. Control over the military is difficult to accomplish in most authoritarian regimes, even monarchies. In a totalitarian society, it’s different because the military is brought under the total control of the regime.In the Soviet Union, Stalin executed almost all his officer corps during the Great Purges in the 1930s to bring the military under his control. This assured him total loyalty of the military.In Germany, Hitler struck a deal with the military, eliminating the socialist wing of his national socialist party, which in turn led the German military leadership to acquiesce to his rule. Later, a force separate from the military was created to assure that in the event the military turned against Hitler, there would be another military branch to protect him. This was the infamous SS.In both countries, within a few years of totalitarian rule, the military lost its independence and became a tool of the ruling regime.
Control over the economy: To qualify as a totalitarian regime, a government has to control its economy. In the Soviet Union, all property was nationalized and owned by the government, and the government planned for the economy, abolishing the free market. Government control of the economy was a given.Germany was different. In Germany, private property and ownership of business existed, but the government often intervened, telling businesses what to produce and how much to charge for it. Often, the government itself became the largest purchaser of privately produced goods.
Only if a government controls all six areas can it be labeled totalitarian. If it meets only five or fewer of the criteria, it’s considered authoritarian instead of totalitarian. With technological advances today, it’s very unlikely that any government could ever qualify as totalitarian again. It has become impossible to control all aspects of the media, to prevent a country’s citizenry to be kept in the dark for long periods of time.
Answering to authoritarianism
An authoritarian government has less power over its citizens than a totalitarian government. Although it still controls many aspects of its citizens lives, it doesn’t exercise complete control. Authoritarian leaders usually don’t possess an official ideology that penetrates a society. More important, there’s no powerful political party that runs the state for the leadership and permeates all aspects of society.
Totalitarian leaders possess a high level of charisma that results in a very high level of public support. Thy tend to be good speakers and are able to solicit dedication from the masses. Authoritarian leaders are the opposite. Many of them aren’t charismatic, and the level of public support they enjoy is low, usually based on specific issues or fear of a secret police.
The level of control over a person’s public life may be the same as that found in a totalitarian society, but control of the private lives of citizens is missing.
Total control of the media and the military is also missing. In many instances, authoritarian leaders are replaced by their own militaries. In addition, with the advent of globalization, it has become tougher to control a country’s economy. The state-controlled economies of the Soviet era have disappeared, and today even authoritarian regimes like China see their economies easily impacted by other economies.
Finally, the level of legitimacy is very high in totalitarian regimes. People have been indoctrinated to support the leader and often are swayed by his charismatic style. Plus, a high level of nationalism is found in a totalitarian society. Often totalitarian countries have been wronged in the past and now are ready to right the wrong. In authoritarian regimes, neither is found. Further, the level of corruption is low in totalitarian regimes while it can be very high in authoritarian regimes.
Dividing Powers
One of the fundamental aspects of a political structure such as a state is the distribution of power among its parts and various levels. They’re called systems of government. The amount of power held by the central government determines the system of government a state has. The three major systems of government distributing power are a unitary system, a federal system, and a confederation.
Centering on a unitary system
In a unitary system, most power is located with the central government. Although lower levels of governments, such as counties or departments, can exist, these don’t have independent powers. All power is derived from the central government. These lower levels of governments implement policy made at the central level. They can’t change or even question these policies.
France is a great example of a unitary system. It has lower levels of governments called departments. There are 95 departments in mainland France and 5 overseas departments in places like Martinique in the Caribbean. Each department is run by a department council, elected by the people and headed by a department president. The departments have limited powers. Their major function is to implement policies made by the central government in Paris. So while France looks like a federal system on paper having subnational levels of governments, in reality, it’s unitary because these levels have no independent powers.
A good example involves education. In France, the Department of Education sets the high-school curriculum for the whole country. So everybody in France knows that at 11:00 a.m. all students in 10th grade study Algebra in every region of France. The same goes for laws and regulations. There are no variances between Northern France and Southern France when it comes to things such as building codes. Everybody knows what to expect from laws and regulations, and nobody can be surprised. Other examples of unitary systems include the Netherlands and Japan.
Focusing on federalism
In a federalist state, subnational levels of governments not only exist but have independent powers. These powers are reserved by a constitution for these subnational levels of governments and can’t be taken away by the central government. Examples are states in the U.S. and the Laender (federal states) in Germany. Both of these subnational levels of governments have independent powers guaranteed by federal constitutions. Additionally, these lower levels of governments are represented at the national level in upper houses of governments such as the U.S. Senate or the German Bundesrat.
The central government usually maintains full power over the military and monetary and foreign policy, but the lower levels of governments do exercise important powers. In the U.S., for example, the states have power over school curricula and can decide on matters such as whether to have the death penalty, what the speed limit should be, and most recently whether to legalize recreational drugs. In Germany, the Laender can also set school curricula and have important powers of taxation.
The next question is why have a federal political structure? Are there advantages and disadvantages over a unitary system?
Dissecting federalism versus a unitary system
A federal form of government works best in large diverse countries like the U.S. An argument can be made that government should be close to the people, and therefore local government is the best form of government. Local government and even state government allows for the people to closely monitor their elected representatives and make sure that the policies implemented represent them. It’s