We’ve seen a spike over the last few years in the use of the word “authoritarianism.” This is the predictable result of the recent rise of authoritarian regimes which, to a greater or lesser extent, work to subvert and dismantle the institutions and practices of democracy and the rule of law. 

A survey of more than 500 political scientists found that they believe the United States is headed towards authoritarian rule. A majority of Americans, according to a PRRI poll, now believes Donald Trump is “a dangerous dictator.” (It remains an enduring mystery why this majority didn’t stumble onto this conclusion before the November election).  

Authoritarianism and totalitarianism

There is, of course, another term for modern dictatorial regimes, one that gained considerable currency during the Cold War after the 1951 publication of “The Origins of Totalitarianism” by Hannah Arendt, but which has somewhat fallen out of favor.

How does authoritarianism differ from totalitarianism? There is no precise description of either; like other political terms, they are subject to questionable definitions that often depend on the viewpoint of whoever is using them. Marxist writers shunned the word “totalitarian”; Nazi Germany was invariably referred to as “fascist,” while the Soviet Union was a “people’s democracy.” But “totalitarian” was a favorite term of anti-Communists throughout the Cold War.

Based on descriptions of dictatorial regimes over the past century, the distinction seems to be this: Totalitarianism is authoritarianism intensified. Whereas authoritarianism may leave society outside the political realm more or less intact, totalitarianism makes a total claim on civil society. In its most extreme form, as in North Korea, there is virtually no private sphere where persons can gather and exchange ideas outside the regime’s surveillance and control.

Another difference is that authoritarian regimes often have no developed ideology beyond hatred of the political opposition. Totalitarian ideology can be elaborate, if syncretic, and can incorporate disparate, even contradictory ideas (including convoluted and childish conspiracy theories) to produce a kind of comprehensive worldview or substitute religion.

Charismatics and true believers

Totalitarian leaders tend toward charismatic styles and have a genuine bond of loyalty with their followers, who often express extreme, exaggerated enthusiasm for the leader and his movement. The followers are in fact the key to totalitarian movements, without whom the charismatic leader would simply be a barroom bloviator. Whereas the typical authoritarian dictator often comes to power amid economic or political crisis, frequently by way of a coup, the charismatic leader is swept into power on a populist wave. 

The “crisis” he exploits is a deep-seated cultural one, but also a personal one in the life of the follower. As Eric Hoffer’s “The True Believer” (published the same year as Arendt’s book) observes, the disposition to follow a charismatic leader was “seeded in the minds” of his true believers long before he arrived on the scene. 

These followers may not constitute the majority of a population; indeed they rarely do. But if they reach 30 to 40 percent, their dogmatic persistence may successfully overcome the majority, many of whom are timid or apathetic, and set the political tone for a society. The famous line of William Butler Yeats, “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity” applies to political behavior.

Reaction versus totalitarianism

By contrast, many authoritarian leaders are colorless, possessing little or no charisma: Consider Francisco Franco, Antonio Salazar, the Greek colonels, Leopoldo Galtieri, Augusto Pinochet, Park Chung-hee. They often do not have any coherent or developed ideology, other than opposition to the left. They obtain key support from wealthy interests, but rather than a fervent mass following they count on a divided, apathetic or acquiescent population to gain and hold power.

Totalitarian leaders tend toward charismatic styles and have a genuine bond of loyalty with their followers, who often express extreme, exaggerated enthusiasm for the leader and his movement. 

In a sense, these are true reactionaries, whereas totalitarianism tends to have a revolutionary element. Authoritarians will of course use violence to preserve the status quo, and their rule over societies is repressive, but everything is designed to keep a lid on things. Whether from a calculation of how best to maintain the status quo or from simple lack of imagination, authoritarians generally do not  want to rock the boat. It is difficult to imagine most of them as objects of a personality cult.

This sort of authoritarianism also characterized the last decade or so of Communist rule in eastern Europe. As a student in Europe, I recall encountering Poles, Hungarians, Yugoslavs and other Eastern bloc nationals living in Western Europe — not as exiles, but as contract workers or students. These were not idealists building Communism; it was difficult  to be an idealist under the leadership of grey nonentities like Polish Gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski or East Germany’s Erich Honecker. Perhaps the lone exception in Eastern Europe  was Romania, where Nicolae Ceaușescu — who had broken with Moscow years earlier — maintained a rigid dictatorship and cult of personality up until he faced a firing squad.

-Mike Lofgren in Salon.com