These two forms of government are alike and different in many ways. The following essay will describe, contrast, and compare authoritarianism and totalitarianism. The term authoritarianism is used to describe a government which implements strong and sometimes domineering measures against the population without the consent of the population.
She is especially known for her interpretation of the events that led to the rise of totalitarianism in the twentieth century.
Arendt studied under German philosophers Martin Heidegger and Karl Jaspers and set out to pursue a path as an academic, writing a dissertation on St.
Being Jewish, Arendt was forced to flee the country, seeking refuge in France and eventually the United States.
After living through the outbreak of WWII, Arendt devoted the rest of her life to writing about politics, although less in a traditional philosophical sense and more in the vein of a political observer, interpreting events of the twentieth century.
This essay explains some central insights of her political thought and how she developed these concepts to overcome the loss of politics as public debate in Nazi Germany.
She witnessed the collapse of politics, in this sense, under Nazi totalitarianism. This form of rule seeks to diminish public debate by making it a criminal act to criticize the regime.
Arendt sought to understand the rise of this unprecedented form of government, and to defend public debate against threats to its existence. Throughout her writings Arendt defended the importance of public debate.
For Arendt, plurality is an existential condition of human life: Our distinctness provides us with a perspective that cannot be fully understood by anyone else, yet our equality means that, as a presupposition of communication, we assume the capacity for speech and reason in each other.
Based on plurality, politics then is the place and activity of shared communication based on the distinct perspectives of equal human beings. When we engage in political life, we seek to communicate how things look from our distinct perspectives, while others do the same.
For Arendt, the activity of publicly addressing one another about how things appear from our distinct perspectives is the lifeblood of politics.
Sharing our perspectives with to others is done in the public space, which must be preserved if democratic politics is to remain a viable possibility.
This public space was destroyed under totalitarian regimes in the twentieth century. Power through Civil Disobedience How does Arendt argue we preserve the public space?
The answer lies in how Arendt rethinks the concept of power.
As a political concept, we often associate power with rulers, governments, and politicians. Rulers or politicians have or hold power, as if power is something to be possessed. The public action to protest unjust laws is a manifestation of the public space discussed above.
To think of power as Arendt does means that those engaged in civil disobedience are attempting to reclaim the public space of debate. Through enacting unjust laws, government has abused the legitimacy it has been entrusted with: Reclaiming the public space of debate is an effective mechanism for citizens when they believe a government has lost its legitimacy.
Robust public debate in many forms ensures that it is not merely the ruling regime that defines the parameters of public debate, especially if they attempt to drown out dissent as, for example, in the delegitimization of the media or press.
Public space refers to the activity of shared debate among plural human beings; this space and activity are maintained as long as opportunities exist for the gathering of citizens. Current political circumstances, especially the rise of nationalist and populist movements across the globe, speak to the importance of robust public debate among citizens.
University of Chicago Press, Any group of people that decide to achieve some common goal must work together and not be at cross purposes.Within many Authoritarian Regimes, the conditions are very similar and the political participation becomes severely limited.
The following essay will attempt to briefly capture a few key characteristics of two countries in terms of elections, political parties, and the role of civil societies within the state.
Most political analysts agree that the period towards the beginning of the 20th century up to the last quarter of the century was characterized by totalitarian regimes - Totalitarianism Essay introduction.
Though there exist various types of political systems, the totalitarian system was the most dominant not only across Asia but also in South America and Europe.
Totalitarianism is defined as a political system in which a centralized government does not tolerate any form of political dissent and seeks to control many, if not all, aspects of public and private life. Totalitarian regimes are more repressive of pluralism and political rights than authoritarian ones.
Under a totalitarian regime, the government controls nearly every aspect of the individual's life. Totalitarian governments do not tolerate activities by individuals or groups that are not influenced by the government's goals.4/4(1). Totalitarianismand political regime Essay Sample Is it rational to use totalitarianism as a political regime of the state?
This essay is devoted to the essence of totalitarian regime. Totalitarianism is a system of government and ideology in which all social, political, economic, intellectual, cultural and spiritual activities are subordinated to the purpose of the rules of the rulers of a .