Democracy
and Totalitarianism are two forms of government; however, there is nothing
similar about the two. Democracy promotes equality and freedom of speech, on
the other hand, Totalitarianism is a quest for absolute power. Usually, Totalitarianism
is linked to words such as terror and manipulation – is there any bright side
to this form of government?
Theoretically,
there is efficiency – chaos caused by elections is not experienced in a
Totalitarian state. Since order is coming from just one figurehead there is no
confusion about commands; China, once a Totalitarian state under Mao Zedongs
rule, shows that you can climb the ladder of success.
However,
don’t the cons clearly outnumber the pros?
Totalitarianism
may be a good thing if the leaders genuinely cared about the people they were
ruling – however, this is not the case. Adolf Hitler, for example, led a Totalitarian
state – his decisions were mostly absurd yet no one questioned them. Since
rulers are selfish and always looking for power, they will not make the right
choice for the public. Totalitarianism is the most drastic denial of freedom and
this is perhaps why it is despised by the masses.
In
today’s world North Korea is still an example of Totalitarianism; no other
country in the world has such a limited list of human rights. Basic rights such
as freedom of speech are debarred; so should a Totalitarian state exist? When
basic freedom is at risk, shouldn’t Totalitarianism be dismissed?
4 comments:
Although I agree with the cons of totalitarian state but does the title of "Democratic state" provide you with the basic human rights?
Consider Pakistan for example, everything portrayed the media is considered valid but people speaking bitter truths are not allowed to speak. Take for example ARY News, ignoring which political party they support, showed to public many proofs against the government and what happened? Their channel was banned. Where does the right to freedom of speech go?
Similarly, fair trials are not given to common people. And there are countless such examples.
Though the fear of not getting a genuine leader is always there in totalitarianism, democracy also does not guarantee prosperity. There should be a middle way of governing the state.
I agree to what you have said about democracy as democracy IS the most appropriate system of government when it comes to rights of the citizens. But in third world countries the idea of democracy has not worked quite well, there are multiple reasons for it.
Perhaps in our country the case is the intolerance of our people. They expect a lot but they can't wait for too long and whenever faced with a difficult situation they would start demanding change of government or military rule. Democracies take time to develop and specially in third world countries like ours we'll have to wait for a long time democracies to flourish in their pure form.
Totalitarianism may give a certain perception of efficiency but the reality is far different. For instance Nazi Germany may very well have won the second world war had Hitler not interfered in military matters and thus not reducing the efficiency of Wehrmacht!
Your line of argument would be imply that, even in the 21st century, there exists this fine and discernible line between a 'democratic' and a 'totalitarian' state.
Do you think that it is correct to align states into two extremely disparate columns just like that?
After all, some might argue that the contemporary United States, the supposed champion of democracy and freedom, might be a totalitarian democracy, with little power in the hands of the people.
Researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, from Princeton and Northwestern respectively, have even went on to claim that the US in its current state is no longer an actual democracy.
Something, in my opinion, to consider would be whether we can even categorise states like that anymore.
Post a Comment