Louis XIV

The state is I.

I. Now in the majority of the countries of the world there are authoritative political usages. In the general view the shape of system of the rigid political board constantly using compulsory and power methods for regulation of the basic social processes was fixed to authoritarianism. At such style властвования the opposition is excluded not only from decision-making sphere, but also from political life as a whole. An authoritative mode - it is state-political system, in which the political power is carried out by the concrete person (a class, party, elite group) at the minimum participation of the people. The main characteristic of the given mode authoritarianism as makes a method властвования and managements, and also as a version of public relations. Being guided at state policy carrying out only by narrow interests of a ruling layer, authoritarianism uses in relations with the population mainly methods патронирования and control.

The main way of preservation of an authoritative way of board are backroom deals, payoff, private arrangement and other technologies of shadow board. Other source of board of this kind considers use by the authorities of certain features of mass consciousness, mentality of citizens, religious and cultural traditions which in aggregate testify to enough steady civil passivity of the population. Now the most essential preconditions for occurrence of authoritative modes keep transitive societies. As Adam Pshevorsky ( marks a sort. 1940 ), authoritative temptations in societies of this kind are almost deep-rooted. Comprehension of daily difficulties causes a temptation in many political forces “to make all rectilinearly, one throw, to stop squabble, to replace a policy with administration, anarchy - discipline, to do all rationally”.

Among set of authoritative usages it is possible to allocate their following basic types: party, corporate, military, national and personal authority modes. Feature of party modes consists in realisation of the exclusive power by any party or a political group not necessarily formally representing institute of party. Military-bureaucratic modes, as a rule, result from revolutions, plots, putsches in the form of military dictatorship, but in the further political development the increasing role belongs any to civil professionals. Forms of military board - from dictatorship of one general to junta. Such political usages differ suppression of a considerable part political and a civil freedom, a wide circulation of corruption and internal instability. Models of national authoritarianism result from domination in elite grouping national or an ethnic group. As example Post-Soviet republics can serve in the Central Asia. One-party mobilisation authoritative modes of this type especially often resulted from independence finding by the colonial people. In the politological literature they have given life to such concept, as postcolonial authoritarianism. Corporate authoritarianism personifies the power of the bureaucratic, oligarchical or shadow groupings combining the power and the property and on this basis supervising decision-making process. The state becomes the tool of forces which use possibilities of its bodies for protection of narrowly group interests. As an example of a corporate mode board Antoniu ди can serve Salazara in Portugal since 1932 till 1968 personal authority Modes personalise all political relations in the opinion of public opinion. Rigid character of board in a combination to certain traditions of noncritical perception of the power quite often gives economic benefit, leads to activization of the population and growth of legitimacy of a mode. However such system of the power quite often provokes practical terror from opposition. In classification of political modes of Juan Lintsa (a sort. 1926) султанизм it is considered as the limiting form автократии. In султанистском a mode the personal intertwines with public, the strong tendency to the family dynastic power and continuity is looked through, there are no distinctions between public service and service to the governor, successes of officials depend on personal relations with the despot, there is no a little rational ideology. The sultan is absolutely free in the actions.

Characteristic features of authoritarianism as systems властвования are:

- Limitlessness of the power, its independence of a society; concentration of the power in hands of the political leader (the monarch, the tyrant) or certain persons (military junta, oligarchical group etc.); the power can correct by means of laws, but it accepts them under own discretion;

- Presence at the state of only key levers of influence on public life; refusal of the power of total control over a society, non-interference or the limited intervention to not political spheres and, first of all, in economy; the power prosecutes subjects mainly maintenance of own safety, a public order, defence, foreign policy though it can influence and strategy of economic development, spend active enough social policy, without destroying thus mechanisms of market self-regulation;

- Restriction and a strict regulation of the political rights and political behaviour both separate citizens, and the political organisations; a non-admission of real political opposition and a competition; at автократии existence of the limited number of parties, trade unions and other organisations, but only under condition of their submission to control to the authorities is possible;

- The support on the force allowing in case of need at own discretion to use of it and to force citizens to obedience; absence of the huge retaliatory device, aspiration not to resort to mass reprisals;

- Formation of political elite by co-optation, appointments from above, instead of competitive electoral struggle;

- The permission to citizens of all of that is not forbidden by the state;

- Presence of elements of democracy in some authoritative modes (elections, parliamentary struggle, etc.)

II. Totalitarian political system. The term "totalitarianism" (from an armour. totalis - whole, full or totalitas - completeness, integrity) the J for the first time has been formulated. Джентиле in beginning ХХ of century in Italy. In 20th years this term is entered by Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) into political use which in the theory “органистического the states” gave to totalitarianism positive sense as to an embodiment of power of the official power. The idea of the omnipotent and all-consuming power in a more comprehensive sense taken as a principle to the given theory was developed by theorists of fascism, met in political compositions of "the left communists ” (the Lion Davydovich Trotsky). However serious attempts of conceptual interpretation of this political phenomenon have been undertaken already after the Second World War and were based on the analysis of a Hitlerite mode in Germany and Stalin - in the USSR: Charles Popper (1902-1994) considered a totalitarianism phenomenon in the work “the Open society and its enemies”; In 1951 there was a book of Hanny Arendt (1906-1975) “a totalitarianism Origin”; after four years Charles Fridrih (1901-1984) and Zbignev Bzhezinsky (a sort. 1928) Totalitarian dictatorship and democracy ”have published work“.

In a political science there were some approaches to totalitarianism illumination. A number of scientists have refused to carry totalitarianism to scientific categories, seeing in it only a metaphor for the dictatorship characteristic. Many scientists, believing that концепт totalitarianism nevertheless theoretically describes real political usages, nevertheless, saw in it only a version of authoritative political system or one of the general patrimonial properties of the government which constantly tries to expand the powers at the expense of a society, imposing it "services" in a management and management. As believes M.Simon, use of the term "totalitarianism" in general needs in the event that be not to adjusted only to it all versions of political dictatorships.

In view of the limited applicability of theories of totalitarianism it is represented to more fruitful to treat it as mainly standard concept finding большее or a smaller practical embodiment in ideology, political movement and real political practice. The general distinctive signs of totalitarianism is the aspiration to general organisation of a society and complete control of the person the power, to radical transformation of all public system according to revolutionary in character the social utopia which is not leaving places for individual freedom and social contradictions. Totalitarianism is the political mode aspiring to an establishment of absolute (total) control over various aspects of life of each person and all society as a whole. Certain signs are inherent in this mode:

- The state aspires to global domination over all spheres of public life, to the comprehensive power;

- The society is almost completely aloof from the political power;

- In political consciousness of people representation about "unity", power and people "merge" is formed;

- Exclusive state control over economy, mass media, culture, religion, private life;

- An absolute regulation of public relations on the basis of a principle “that is directly authorised the law” is permitted only;

- The government is formed in the bureaucratic way with use closed from control of a society of channels;

- The violence, compulsion, terror becomes a dominating management method;

- Domination of one party, actual merging of its professional device with the state, an interdiction of in opposition adjusted forces;

- The rights and freedom of the person and the citizen have declarative, formal character, there are no weighty guarantees of their realisation;

- As an economic basis the large property - state, monopolistically, communal acts;

- Presence of one official ideology, pluralism it is actually eliminated;

- Government centralisation in hands of the dictator and its environment;

- The government is carried out at the discretion of the leader, subordinated to its arbitrariness.

III. Depending on the dominating ideology influencing the maintenance of activity of a totalitarian mode, them usually subdivide into fascism, national socialism and communism, and also theocratic totalitarianism. Historically the first form of totalitarianism considers communism of the Soviet type, the beginning to which the military-communistic system in general generated in 1918 as she assumed full elimination of a private property and, hence, any autonomy of the person, the absolute power over her the states has put. And still the characteristic of a socialism of the Soviet type as totalitarianism одностороння also does not open all maintenance and the policy purposes in this type of a society. Despite mainly totalitarian forms of the political organisation, the humane purposes were inherent in socialist system also: general formation, availability to each person of achievements of a science and art, social security of people etc. Since 60th years ХХ the centuries, many western political scientists have ceased to qualify a political system of the USSR as totalitarian, preferring to describe as a certain version of authoritarianism.

The second version of totalitarian political systems - fascism. For the first time the fascist mode has been established in 1922 in Italy. The Italian fascism gravitated not so much to radical building of a new society, how many to revival of the Italian nation and greatness of Roman empire, an establishment of a firm state order. The fascism applied for restoration or clarification of "national soul”, maintenance of collective identity on cultural or ethnic soil, liquidation of mass criminality. Benito Mussolini confidently considered totalitarianism as a XX-th century innovation, confirming: party which operates totalitarian - the new fact in the history for which analogies and comparisons are inappropriate.

The third version of totalitarianism - national socialism. As the real political and social order it has arisen in Germany in 1933 National socialism was related and close to fascism. Sharply "Leader" (1044) Konrad Hejden has expressed a totalitarianism phenomenon in it natsional-sotsialistskom (nazi) variant in Germany (1901-1966) in the book. Its judgement is possible, possibly to carry to all первоначалам totalitarian usages: “From fragments of the died off classes there is a new class of intellectuals, and at the head of it the most ruthless march, those who has nothing to lose, - the armed bohemia, to whom war - mother native, and civil war - fatherland”.

As the fourth example of theocratic totalitarianism can serve муллократия in Iran after Khomeini's revolution, a mode of Talibs in Afghanistan, etc.

IV. Now totalitarian modes do not play the world scene some an essential role, the area of their distribution was essentially reduced. H.Lints in the typology of political modes has fixed as special posttotalitarian system властвования. It carries the Soviet mode To posttotalitarian usages in the USSR after Joseph Vissarionovicha Stalin's death (1879-1953). The main characteristics of posttotalitarianism are well described by Milovanom Dzhilasom: easing of police services or their neutralisation by means of army ; the permission of crisis of management by creation of the centre of the power already in the form of collective, instead of a personal management; revision of a role of party in a society; gradual process of liberalisation of political system in order to avoid opened or latent by revolution opposition.

Political scientists allocate three conditions of a posttotalitarian mode:

- Early posttotalitarianism is closest to totalitarian board, however differs from it occurrence of terminators on the power of the leader (the USSR at Nikita Sergeeviche Khruschev (1953-1964);

- Late posttotalitarianism more and more tolerantly concerns mode criticism (Czechoslovakia 1977-1989);

- At the mature posttotalitarian power all characteristics of former political system will considerably be transformed, invariable there is only supervising role of party (Hungary 1982-1988).

Characteristic signs of posttotalitarian modes (absence of political pluralism, occurrence of elements of social and economic pluralism, preservation of official ideology at comparative reduction of degree идеологизированности the societies, some easing of mobilisation of citizens through existing institutes, but at maintenance of necessary level of conformism in relation to a mode, бюрократизация a nomenclature management) act as the precondition of their liberalisation and the subsequent democratisation.

The history like would take out the verdict to totalitarianism. But whether the world from relapses of the similar organisation of the power is insured? As social practice shows, the system of the total power is not capable to adapt flexibly to intensive dynamics of modern societies with difficult scale of various interests. It - internally closed system constructed on a principle гомеостазиса (preservations of internal balance, without looking at influences from the outside), moving under self-isolation laws. The totalitarian type of political systems could appear only on narrow time space which was given by history to some countries. It does not mean, nevertheless, that it does not have chances of revival at this or that local level and in ХХI century. Definitive destruction of a phantom of totalitarianism is integrally connected not only with presence of democratic institutes and involving of the countries and the people in new information relations. Enormous value growth of their social responsibility and the initiative have also understanding people of values of democracy, comprehension by them as citizens of the honour and advantage.

Дата добавления: 2014-01-04