Totalitarianism, or absolute rule, is, roughly speaking, a political system in which power is controlled by a single political organization or party that does not recognize any limits to its authority. Consequently, it seeks to control all aspects of public and private life. This definition may seem overly general, so it is necessary to delve a bit deeper into the subject in order to try to understand — and perhaps truly grasp — what totalitarianism is.

Elements of the political theory of a totalitarian state can already be found in Plato, who — viewing the state as a moral institution and the individual as an imperfect being — justifies state coercion and the state’s interference in all social affairs and relations (from political, economic, and social matters, to personal and family issues, including even the selection of suitable individuals for marriage and choosing a spouse, to regulating religious principles and content, censorship in literature, and so on).

Apart from the state, totalitarianism is also present in various forms within the Reformation movements. Ulrich Zwingli (1494–1531), for example, advocated for the unification of church and state, whereby state organs would exercise church authority, thereby granting them immense power. Jean Calvin, on the other hand, formally supported the idea of separating church and state, but in practice insisted on turning the state into an organ of the church, with the aim of establishing a strict theocratic regime. According to him, the church should have had immense authority over all areas of a person’s life (including control over their manner of dress, the color of clothes they could wear, types of jewelry they could use, the festivities and celebrations they could organize, or the books they were allowed to read).

Martin Luther, on one hand, preached religious freedom and the right of individuals to be spared from any exploitation, but on the other, claimed that “state authority is a divine institution and everyone owes it absolute obedience,” which means that no Christian has the right to oppose their government, even when it acts unjustly.

Hegel developed the concept of the state as the realization of the idea of the Absolute Spirit, emphasizing nationalism and anti-liberalism.

In all these variants, as well as in those that arose in the 20th century, totalitarianism is based on:

• The concept of an organic society in which the parts must be subordinated to the whole, so that there are no contradictions within it — or only insignificant ones;
• The idea that the state, as the embodiment of the concept of the “common and unified,” serves as the general representative of society, so that its coercion always serves the realization of some “higher” moral, national, or social act and interest;
• The belief that only the elite or “wise leadership” can be the true, authentic interpreters of these “higher” goals and interests and the reliable “pathfinders” for achieving them, whereby any different approach to the question of leadership is seen as a threat.

In practical political terms, totalitarianism manifests as a party-state dictatorship, which excludes the existence of any opposition to the regime. Domestically, it involves shifting the center of power from parliament to the executive branch and its bodies, while in foreign policy it tends toward hegemony and imperialist conquests.

The totalitarian state regulates all aspects of social life, including family relations, ideological and religious beliefs, educational and artistic orientation, aesthetic criteria and principles — all under conditions of more or less complete subordination of society to an organized force that is alienated from it and beyond the reach of any democratic control.

For this reason, totalitarianism, besides being characterized by a typically authoritarian state and political dictatorship, is also defined by:

• The prohibition of all political parties except the one in power, which is the official bearer of the regime’s ideology;
• The dissolution of all associations except those used by the authorities for their own purposes, whose work is thus controlled and whose leadership is appointed by the state;
• The abolition of all forms of self-governance, or the reconfiguration of their function to make them part of the authoritarian power structure, whereby the election of their leaders is replaced by appointments accountable only to superiors in the hierarchy;
• The elimination of the principle of legality and the introduction of arbitrariness by administrative bodies and decision-making according to immediate expediency;
• The abandonment of the principle of independent judiciary and the transfer of judicial decision-making power to administrative bodies;
• Complete control of the press and all means of information.

Totalitarianism, both as a theoretical concept and as a form of political organization of society, first and foremost develops in places where economic, social, political, and other circumstances dictate the need for or allow the implementation of radical actions by ruling structures.

This usually happens — as clearly demonstrated by the experiences of the 20th century — when an extremely unfavorable situation in society gives rise to a general psychosis of fear and uncertainty, where orientation is lost and quick fixes are sought. The imperative of “change now, at any cost” implies, on one hand, the possibility for various “self-proclaimed fixers of the world” to assume the role of saviors and, on the other hand, a kind of “collective paralysis” of all progressive forces, whereby society, at least temporarily, either loses the ability to reason realistically about what it is doing or the strength to resist what is being done to it.

The first is not possible without the second, and the second manifests in the following ways:

• A doctrine and policy that is essentially nationalist and hegemonistic, led by extremely authoritarian power, is promoted and accepted as the embodiment of the “great idea of a new society”;
• In the absence of democracy and democratic options, clearly undemocratic alternatives are offered as “general salvations”;
• The “salvation formula” (all power to the elite and the leader), though “resistant” to mere ideological labels, always and everywhere entails new human unfreedoms and other misfortunes.

The ideal totalitarian system, at least in theory, consists in the complete destruction of civil society. The state and its instruments of organization become the only forms of social life; all types of activities — economic, intellectual, political, cultural — are permitted and commanded (the difference between permitted and commanded gradually disappears) only if they serve the goals of the state (of course, those defined by the state itself).

In a totalitarian state, the individual has no separate existence — he does not exist outside the totality of the system. That same state must be a state of total responsibility — it represents the total assumption of each individual’s duty to the nation. This assumption of duty nullifies the private significance of an individual’s existence. In all things and in all actions — in public conduct as well as within the family or household — each individual is responsible for the fate of the nation.

It is not important that the state issues laws and orders that reach into the smallest cell of national life, but that it can demand accountability — that it can hold the individual responsible for not fully subordinating his fate to the fate of the nation. This total demand made by the state on each member of the nation constitutes the new essence of the state.

Author: Ivan Toth

Ivan Toth is a distinguished Croatian lawyer and analyst of social affairs.