CDS (II) 2021 General Knowledge · Question 100 of 120

Correct — B, It usurps political freedom of the individuals, but it doesn't usurp personal freedoms. That is the statement about totalitarianism that fails, and it fails on the point that defines the term. A totalitarian system is precisely the one that does not stop at politics: working from an official dominant ideology, it reaches into the economy, the education system, the arts and the sciences, and the private morality of citizens, and it holds that reach in place with censorship of every channel of mass communication, mass surveillance and terror. The word itself was coined to describe a state claiming the whole of life. A system that took political freedom away and left private life alone would be described by political scientists as authoritarian, not totalitarian — authoritarian rule is concerned with political power and leaves society a certain measure of liberty. Statement (b) therefore attaches the authoritarian description to the totalitarian label, which is why it is the one that is not correct.

• (a)It is not akin to autocracy and authoritarianism. — Accepted as correct, and the hardest of the three to leave alone. In everyday speech the three words get used interchangeably, but political theory keeps them apart: autocracy describes where power sits, authoritarianism describes a regime that monopolises political power while tolerating a degree of private and social pluralism, and totalitarianism describes one that recognises no such private sphere at all. Read that way the statement is true, and the key treats it as true.
• (c)It implies abolition of civil society. — A correct statement, and the practical face of the definition. Independent trade unions, churches, professional bodies, newspapers and voluntary associations are either dissolved or absorbed into the party-state, because an autonomous civil society is exactly what a total claim on life cannot allow.
• (d)It is usually identified with a one-party state. — Also correct. A single party fused with the state, monopolising the means of mass communication and enforcing the official ideology, is the standard institutional form these regimes take.

Totalitarianism is a category in comparative politics rather than a term of abuse. The features usually listed are an official ideology claiming to explain everything, a single mass party led by one man, a monopoly of the means of mass communication and of armed force, a centrally directed economy, a system of terror carried out by a secret police, and the destruction of independent social organisation. Juan Linz's distinction between totalitarian and authoritarian regimes rests on the last of these — how much pluralism outside the state the regime tolerates.

The question is a definitions item disguised as a current-affairs one, and it can be answered from a single idea: what is total about totalitarianism is its reach, not merely its severity. Test each option against that idea and (b) collapses immediately, because it explicitly limits the reach to the political. Option (a) will worry a careful reader, because in loose usage totalitarian, authoritarian and autocratic are near-synonyms and one could defend the opposite reading. The key nevertheless treats (a) as a correct statement, which is consistent with the technical literature that separates the three, and it is worth answering to the technical distinction rather than the colloquial one.

• A totalitarian system seeks to control both the public and the private spheres of society, using an official dominant ideology.
• Its instruments typically include censorship of all mass communication, mass surveillance and policing, and state terror.
• Authoritarianism, by contrast, is concerned with political power and leaves society a certain degree of liberty; it lacks the transformative ideological mission.
• The abolition or absorption of an autonomous civil society is a defining consequence, not an incidental one.
• A single party fused with the state is the usual institutional form of a totalitarian regime.

• Assuming totalitarian and authoritarian are synonyms; the distinction is the whole point of the question.
• Testing severity rather than reach — a very harsh regime that leaves private life alone is still authoritarian.
• Reading a one-party state as sufficient by itself; the ideology, the terror apparatus and the suppression of civil society are what complete the definition.

Almost always as a 'which one is not correct' item on the features of totalitarianism, or as a contrast with authoritarianism and democracy.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  Which one of the following best distinguishes a totalitarian regime from an authoritarian one?

  • (a)The presence of a written constitution
  • (b)The extent to which the state penetrates private and social life
  • (c)The size of the armed forces
  • (d)Whether elections are held at fixed intervals

  Answer(b) The extent to which the state penetrates private and social life — an authoritarian regime monopolises political power but leaves society some liberty, while a totalitarian one recognises no private sphere.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  The abolition of an autonomous civil society under a totalitarian regime is best explained by which one of the following?

  • (a)The high cost of maintaining voluntary organisations
  • (b)A constitutional bar on forming associations in most countries
  • (c)The regime's claim to direct the whole of social life through a single official ideology
  • (d)The preference of citizens for state-run bodies

  Answer(c) The regime's claim to direct the whole of social life through a single official ideology — independent unions, churches, newspapers and professional bodies are incompatible with that claim, so they are dissolved or absorbed.