# Why would leaders want a totalitarian government?



## theoddone (Jan 9, 2015)

In my novel, the story is focusing mainly on the ongoing war between two nations. One of them is a totalitarian government, while the other is more of a democracy. I want to do a lot of research on this before I finish the novel because a large chunk of this story is about the HUGE gap between right and wrong. It's about the black, the white, and all the gray in between what is considered good and evil - mostly about the gray.

I believe, when it comes to forms of government and the decisions our leaders make for us, people tend to be heavily divided by what they believe to be all good and well, and what they believe to be wrong. In this story, I focus a lot on the difference between the people living in these two nations.

The people of the totalitarian government have grown up in a world where they are not allowed to make any decisions on their own; rather than making a fair living on their own, the government disperses them food and resources. I believe people who spend their entire lives living off the assistance of another will struggle to live any other way.

A thought occurred to me: why would the leaders want to keep people in conditions like this? One thought that crossed my mind was power; if people need the government, they will be less likely to turn against it. Also relating to power would be wealth. If ruling families could keep citizens in poverty, they would be able to gather more wealth for themselves. There would be no middle class; only higher and lower... Still, I feel like I'm missing something: another reason that is evading me...

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated!
_
(now I just have to think about the democracy....)_


----------



## Morkonan (Jan 9, 2015)

theoddone said:


> ...Still, I feel like I'm missing something: another reason that is evading me...
> 
> Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated!
> _
> (now I just have to think about the democracy....)_



The leaders in a totalitarian government do not have to be selfishly abusing the system for personal gain - They could be benevolent dictators, seeking to act as good stewards of their citizens. Though, the maxim "Absolute power corrupts, absolutely" could apply, in time.

The thing about totalitarianism is that it doesn't tend to last any longer than the powerful personalities that established it. Eventually, it becomes corrupted, somewhat, by the influences of outside agencies and forces. Without a way to deal with those issues by continually reinforcing a "pure" totalitarianism, it becomes something less than it was. Inevitably, one of the most popular mechanisms that a totalitarian government would seek to use is "bureaucracy" in an attempt to stabilize the government and to promote continuity of totalitarianism. In the modern age, this doesn't work very well.

But, consider an established theocracy, where the leaders of the government were also leaders of the religion. Their word is not only law, it's religious law - Far more than one's social status can be effected if one breaches such a law. Even in a theocracy, which we generally tend to view as inevitably corruptible, religious leaders could be fanatics, truly believing that they have the best interests of the people in mind. By using not only "the government" to remain in power, but the "religion" as well, the totalitarian theocracy maintains a constant pressure on citizens to support the existing regime.

In my opinion, totalitarian governments in certain sorts of fiction (SF/Fantasy) are more appealing if they appear to be led by some who are true "patriots" of their form of government. If, for instance, there is a single totalitarian leader, these people could be fanatically devoted to them, giving one the impression that they believe the leader is almost godlike, the only one capable of leading the people to "the promised land." There are forms of government on Earth, today, that reflect this. Though, even they suffer from corruptions and diplomatic power-struggles.

Class distinctions, such as "rulers" vs "the peasantry" are fairly easy to illustrate. But, the mindset that goes along with those systems is somewhat difficult for us to see, these days. A peasant is just a peasant, for instance. Without the leadership of the totalitarian government, the peasants would be helpless, incapable of fending for themselves. It's the leader's responsibility to see that their peasants want for nothing and are kept safe. This is relatively easy to do, since peasants require little to sustain them and have no other interests that don't involve eating, pooping or sex, right? It's pretty easy for a leader with that mindset to justify just about any act, all in the name of "caring" for those they have been given charge of by "natural law." In fact, attempting to improve the minds or cultures of peasants is extremely dangerous, since they could not possibly understand what it is that they would have been given.



> ...A thought occurred to me: why would the leaders want to keep people in conditions like this?..



Because that is what the leaders think is best for their people. Or, if you wish to use corruption, because that is what enables the leaders to stay in power. And, further, if you'd like a mix of the two - Because that is what enables the leaders to stay in power so that they can make the best decisions for their citizens. (Never mind that the perks that come with being a leader are pretty nice... That's just the leadership's "just rewards" for sacrificing in their acceptance of the heavy responsibility for being a leader!  )


----------



## theoddone (Jan 9, 2015)

*@Morkonan*_

Just between you and me, I always hope you will reply to my threads because your post are long and full of awesomeness._

I really love your suggestion about leaders wanting to keep people in these conditions for their own safety - I never even considered that possibility. I could easily make characters who believe this is the best option for the people, and then other characters who do not care, but want to remain in their positions of power.

In this world I am building, most of the planet has become an inhabitable, radioactive wasteland. People are not educated about why the world became this way, but simply told it is too dangerous to stray from their safe havens. Because it is very difficult to grow food, people are not able to buy food freely, but are given rations that must last them until the next rations will come. There is also a resistance trying to take down this nation, so the people who live here are taught to fear the resistance. So, I am able to easily pile up all these reasons why the citizens need their government.

Only soldiers and figures in power know about the many things the nation does to the citizens to keep them in check...


----------



## codenamedarksky (Jan 10, 2015)

Leaders may want a totalitarian government, for the same reason any morally correct character does anything; they believe that it is what is truly right for everyone. I have no idea who the leaders of this government are like in your story, but if they grew up in this civilization in previous, more trying times, they may truly believe that order is what is required for their country to survive and thrive. Outsiders would most definitely see this differently, as a form of oppression. But, on the flip side, maybe the totalitarian government's citizens are simply looking to be protected and provided for, fueling the leaders' view that a strictly controlled government is correct.

Or, throwing that all out the window, the leader could simply be extremely power-hungry, obsessed with controlling the masses that they view as a disorderly, yet grudgingly necessary, part of life.

Ultimately, it's up to you, and how you portray the situation. I hope this helped


----------



## Riis Marshall (Jan 10, 2015)

Hello Theoddone

You may want to spend some time studying Plato's _The Republic_. In his perfect society there are a few born to rule and the many born to work and obey. Personally I think this philosophy sucks.

I examine this question in a great deal of detail in _The Bureau of Happiness_. And the question that is woven throughout this discussion is: 'Who decides?'

Let me see if I get this right: Plato claims there are these few fit to rule and he, for obvious reasons, has concluded he is one of the few. Suppose I, then, born of parents of the many decide I might like to become one of the few. Who decides?

Great stuff to think about; thanks for starting an interesting thread.

All the best with your writing.

Warmest regards
Riis


----------



## tabasco5 (Jan 14, 2015)

My recommendation would be to read a little about different totalitarian regimes - current and historical.  But you are also on the right track with your statement - money, power, safety, etc.  Those are all valid reasons.


----------



## Plasticweld (Jan 14, 2015)

If you want to see true division you do not have to look very far.  The basic divergence between Liberals in the US and Conservatives, sums up  both rationales.   The Liberals  believe we are doomed and tend to see the negative side of things, left to our own devices we are going to, or have destroyed what once was.  The answer for them is of coarse government not individuals to fix the problems.  All good things flow from the government.  They hold all the answers and with your money and compliance you will be better off. 


A Conservative believes that hope lies in individual effort.  They see hope in the future and possibilities based on an individuals creativity and desire for profit to make things work.  The government is the obstacle not the solution. All they need to succeed is the ability to keep some of their money, have the chance to succeed or fail or their own.  They believe in rewarding success and see it as an individual accomplishment, not a collective one.     



It is easy for you to take everyday problems that are here in todays newspapers to see examples of this type of conflict and see the passion on both sides.  You need only to change a few details and you will have the most realistic battle ground for your two worlds that will have a ring of truth and reality to it that can't be duplicated in the wildest imagination.


----------



## ppsage (Jan 14, 2015)

It should not be that hard to find a lot of reasons, seeing as how, up until around three hundred years ago, all the rest of the governments in the history of the world at least believed themselves totalitarian. It is only with the advent of radical egalitarianism from the eighteenth century that any pretense of equality in society comes into the picture, and I sort of suspect that even that is more a case of ideological subscription than any real praxis in decision making power.


----------



## SamLeitner (Apr 17, 2015)

Totalitarian government maintains subjects to serve the rulers needs be  it food, labor, or war. Totalitarian government is simple without debate and very  efficient. A democracy will be hard to find. To my knowledge there  aren't any left. If you believe what the United States has is a  democracy or a democratic process you might want to reevaluate the  basics.

Totalitarian government survives until someone with more  power takes over. Everyone dies. There is no incentive to pass power to  the subjects. The wealth of the ruler is in taking a percentage of what  others produce. As long as the people are content with what they receive  there is no incentive for change.

A democracy is perhaps the  most inefficient form of government. It works only for small numbers of  people. Hence the republic form where people elect representatives. When  the republic gets too big a branch of government develops called the  bureaucracy that survives the elected officials and perpetuates its own  causes. In the end, the bureaucracy decides who lives and who dies, who  goes to war, who gets paid by the government, and who goes to jail. Only  the super rich are spared from prosecution of wrong-doing similar to a  totalitarian government. Revolution from time to time is healthy. It  provides a cleaner slate to try again.

The theory of the pendulum  applies here swinging slowly from totalitarian to democracy and back to  totalitarian spending least time in the middle. The best way to defeat a  democracy or republic is to let it destroy itself. It doesn't take much  to help it implode. Defeat of a totalitarian government requires more  directed attention.

Perhaps you might reconsider equating these  two types of government with "right and wrong". A republic can be more  wrong than a totalitarian government. In both cases it comes down to  good or bad leadership.


----------



## K.S. Crooks (Apr 17, 2015)

The people could feel grateful to the leaders or hold them in the highest regard because of something they did that saved their nation or lead them to prosperous times. After George Washington's second term as President there were many who wanted him to stay on indefinitely as President, which he declined knowing this would in effect make him a type of King.


----------



## GaminEsques (Apr 30, 2015)

One desire to implement a totalitarianism springs from a nefarious psychological need. To understand this need I ask that you first consider the effects of slavery on the master and the slave. Thomas Jefferson wrote that slavery has a dehumanizing effect on both slave and master--the slave for being oppressed, the master for possessing the power to press. Slavery turns the master into a tyrant and a demon. The slave loses all sense of worth when survival means a degrading submission to that demon. Both forget how to be human. As long as the master-slave relationship survives, neither are human.


In a totalitarian government, the roles of ruled and the rulers are placeholders for slaves and masters. The ruled must submit to the arbitrary powers and dictates of the rulers. The ruled are not subjected to laws enacted through a system honoring their voice or consent; rather, they are subjected to men. They are subjected to men transformed into tyrants wielding unnatural and capricious powers. This dehumanizing process distorts and the rulers, into creatures highly susceptible to cruelty and sensuality, driven to gratify their own selfish urges.


Now, to address your original inquiry--why would leaders want a totalitarian government?--the psychological need, which I partially described above, is the impulse to dehumanize either themselves or the would-be ruled. Why would these rulers want to dehumanize themselves? I believe it is a desire to break from the limits that a humane consciousness imposes on an individual interacting in society. Once freed from these morals chains, the rulers can enact their will in the absence of guilt, shame, etc, etc. In order to elevate themselves over the ruled, the rulers have to perceive the ruled as not equals--something less, and, therefore, less than human. The motives can vary and can be judged to be ostensibly beneficial. The rulers could believe that they are doing the ruled a favor because the ruled are not capable of governing society due to being less than human.


I'm just spit-balling here. There are plenty of reasons. Other commentators have covered some of the grounds.


----------

