The Ideals of Totalitarianism

Hannah Arendt's book, The Origins of Totalitarianism, raises several fascinating questions concerning one's perception of an ideal government. Today's focus on liberalism in the Western World is accepted as good leadership, while nationalist dictators that have, and still do rule over African and Asian countries, are viewed as bad leaders. While I believe it to be true that such men are, (to use the cliche), evil hearted, I also think Arendt's argument that this does not make their basic ideologies of rule, evil, quite thought-provoking. That is to say, a strong minded state that can still operate under the free-minded laws of Rousseau's social contract, to my mind, would be the ideal form of leadership. But is this possible?

People, as a collective race, unconsciously seek any kind of residing authority to whom they may be answerable, while at the same time, look to for guidance. This may be demonstrated in all walks of life, from the hierarchies of universities and international corporations, to the natural parenthood within families. All the while, every citizen is answerable to the police, or more specifically, the law, for the police too are subject to the very rules that they uphold.

Law, one would think, is untouchable - an invisible, omnipresent force that binds society together and cannot be questioned. But of course, it can be. Every week, our own Parliament discusses the introduction, abolishing, or revision of Acts that directly impact our lives. Thus, it may be argued that one cannot feel he or she obeys the laws of any society absolutely, as such laws are constantly changing. The law against murder, for example, may be scrapped tomorrow. One may argue that there are laws to prevent such happenings, but what if those laws were to be abolished too in a mass uprising? After all, laws can only be enforced (and therefore exist) if they are obeyed by a majority.

To refer back to Arendt, her book argues that the one form of leadership that can prevent disorder is that of totalitarianism. This is because of the 'essence' that drives it forward; terror - an emotion that we experience innately and so therefore cannot oppose, placing us firmly and undeniably under the constraints of the regime, (a clear binary opposition to the ideas of Rousseau).

As a concept, it works first through transforming the classes into 'the masses', before supplanting the party system and establishing a foreign policy that leads toward world domination. It thus acts as a virus, spreading its influence until it consumes every last nation and integrates them into its machine-like system of rule and authority. Power is shifted from the army to the police, creating an internal network of surveillance to aid in upholding the state. And yet the newly formed masses supposedly embrace this form of total rule, albeit after a certain length of time. Ironically, the regime works to defy its own laws in the interest of the majority, thus allowing it to survive and prosper, before these laws no longer satisfy the new majority and so the cycle begins again. Arendt describes this as 'liberating the laws of Nature and History'.

The basis of the totalitarian state exists as an efficient law of living, rather than killing, but in order to do so, it must destroy free thinking, (and here is where I certainly do not believe in the concept). A combination of physical and mental terror destroys a person's logic, the former being achieved through the threat of death and the latter through the threat of isolation. Forcing a man or woman to live through only work eliminates interaction with other people, (another innate desire that we feel we need to be free). Thus, isolation works to both drive the economic engine of the state forward, as well as help it to exist in the first place.

So, we see that totalitarianism effectively gives with one hand and immediately takes away with the other. But this is a constant cycle, which is how a pure totalitarian regime would survive. Under the guidance of evil dictators, (who try to utilise the state to their own ends), however, the concept fails and is overthrown. Thus, I become something of an idealist, as unfortunately, the concept of totalitarianism is clearly not compatible with the favourable ideologies of Rousseau, whereby citizens are given licence to be individuals working towards a greater cause. There can be no 'pure hybrid', so to speak, and so it is to the discretion of each nation to find a middle ground between the two extremes.

Sorry for the late post. Have a great Christmas everyone!