Human Rule Weighed in the Balances

Part 5​—Unlimited Power—​A Blessing or a Curse?

Autocracy: government by one person having unlimited power; Authoritarianism: the use of governing power without the consent of the governed, less extreme than totalitarianism; Dictatorship: government with a ruler whose absolute power is not limited by law or restrained by any official body; Totalitarianism: centralized control by an autocratic body, making citizens almost totally subject to State authority.

AUTHORITARIAN governments, long on control and short on individual freedom, readily call to mind adjectives like “oppressive,” “tyrannical,” and “despotic.” Highly nationalistic, they are regimes that control every branch of government, keep strict watch over all their citizens, and ban activities, however harmless these may be, that do not promote national interests. Sad to say, human history has no lack of authoritarian governments about which to report.

A Matter of Degree

The World Book Encyclopedia says: “The Russian government under the czars came close to being an absolute autocracy.” But not all authoritarian rule is absolute; it is largely a matter of degree. And all authoritarian governments are not autocracies, that is to say, governments headed by a single ruler, a dictator, or a czar. Some may be controlled by a group, perhaps by a military junta, or by an oligarchic or plutocratic elite.

Even democracies can be authoritarian. It is true that they have political parties, hold elections, maintain courts of law, and boast of a parliament or legislature. Yet, to the extent that the government controls these various institutions, forcing them to do its bidding, to that extent it is authoritarian, regardless of structure. Not that it was consciously so designed. During wartime or periods of national turmoil, the situation may have demanded granting the government emergency powers. Perhaps the emergency subsided; the emergency powers, however, did not.

Monarchies are in varying degrees authoritarian. But absolute monarchies have for the most part been replaced by limited monarchies. Legislative bodies and possibly written constitutions limit the authority such monarchies can exercise, lessening their potential for authoritarianism. Thus, the enjoyment of individual freedom in the limited monarchies of today reaches levels far beyond those found in the absolute monarchies of the past.

Even when absolute monarchies were common, their power was limited. Professor of history Orest Ranum explains that “most of the kings lacked both the temperament and the actual power to dominate their subjects totally or crush out racial and cultural minorities like a Hitler or a Mussolini or a Stalin.” Obviously, a king’s high morals and fine qualities​—or lack of same—​were decisive. At any rate, Ranum says: “No absolute monarchy approached the modern totalitarian state in its degree of cultural and economic centralization.”

Aiming for Total Power

During the 1920’s and 1930’s, in Italy, the Soviet Union, and Germany, a new kind of authoritarian government burst onto the world scene, one that necessitated the coining of a new term to describe it adequately. In these lands the media had come under State control. The police had become servants of the ruling political party and no longer were servants of the people. Propaganda, censorship, regimentation, secret police surveillance, and even force were being used to counteract opposition. Citizens were being coerced into adopting as their own the official political and social ideology of the government. Those who refused were dealt with as traitors. The term “totalitarianism” seemed appropriate​—a state in pursuit of its own goals, totally in control of all its citizens.

The German magazine Informationen zur politischen Bildung (Information for Political Education) elaborates: “The state that aims for total control, in contrast with an authoritarian regime, does not content itself with taking over official positions of power. It is unwilling to grant citizens in limited measure relative freedom but demands allegiance and active doctrinal support from them at all times. These unlimited demands require a totalitarian state to influence areas normally exempt from state intervention, such as family, religion, and leisure time. To meet these demands, the totalitarian state must cast out an organizational net capable of supervising every individual at all times.”

Of course, from the standpoint of the State and its interests, totalitarian government is highly efficient. But it is impossible to maintain, says journalist Charles Krauthammer. There is simply too much to control. “For short bursts of time you can jail, even shoot, people,” he says, “but after a while you run out of bullets, jails, energy, even victims. . . . Only permanent revolution can meet the totalitarian ideal, and permanent revolution is impossible. Even tyranny needs its sleep.”

Caused by ‘Mass Society’?

Various theories have been advanced to explain why authoritarianism, particularly in its most extreme and successful form, totalitarianism, has so characterized the 20th century. According to The World Book Encyclopedia, “the first two-thirds of the 1900’s was a period of great change​—perhaps the most rapid and widespread change in all history.” Without doubt, this has had much to do with the trend toward authoritarianism.

The population explosion, urbanization, and technological advances are modern phenomena that have helped create what is called mass society. This term designates an industrial society characterized by large, centralized, bureaucratic, and impersonal institutions. It is a society in which human relationships tend to be shallow and fleeting. It is a society in which, amid masses of people, lonely individuals are constantly in search of their roots and of a sense of community.

To what extent mass society fostered the development of totalitarianism is controversial. According to the late German-born political scientist Hannah Arendt, its influence was considerable. Her book The Origins of Totalitarianism notes that totalitarianism is built, not on classes, but on masses of people who “either because of sheer numbers, or indifference, or a combination of both, cannot be integrated into any organization based on common interest, into political parties or municipal governments or professional organizations or trade unions.”

Arendt also mentions other factors that contributed to the rise of totalitarianism: imperialism, anti-Semitism, and the disintegration of the traditional nation-state.

Imperialism?

Shortly before the turn of the century, colonization took an upsurge. British economist John Atkinson Hobson dates 1884 to 1914 as a period of what is now called new imperialism. This was nothing other than the authoritarian use of power by monarchical or democratic governments for the purpose of expanding their empires. Ascendancy over other lands was achieved either by direct acquisition or by indirect domination of their political and economic affairs. Hobson interprets imperialism to be chiefly a matter of economics. Of a fact, this new brand of colonialism often had less to do with political power than it did with economic expansion and with the creation of new markets for a nation’s goods.

Nowhere was this more apparent than in what became known as the Scramble for Africa. Already in the early 1880’s, Britain, France, and Portugal had numerous African colonies. But when Belgium and Germany began casting envious glances, the rush was on. Except for Ethiopia and Liberia, all Africa was soon under European rule. Black Africans were forced to look on as white “Christian” settlers expropriated their land.

The United States of America also became an imperial power. In the late 19th century, it acquired Alaska, Hawaii, the Philippine Islands, Guam, and Samoa and other Pacific islands, as well as Puerto Rico and other Caribbean islands. Of more than passing interest is a comment made by Henry F. Graff, a professor of history at Columbia University, who writes: “The activities of Christian missionaries were as influential as those of the publicists in the making of modern imperialism.” But had these missionaries of Christendom been genuine Christians, they would have remained politically neutral in the scramble for Africa as well as other colonial empires, in accordance with Jesus’ words: “They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world.”​—John 17:16; James 4:4.

The era of imperialism supposedly ended in 1914. This is not true, however, of its authoritarian spirit. This spirit was well epitomized by Cecil Rhodes, prime minister during the 1890’s of what is now a part of South Africa, when he said: “Expansion is everything.” A moving force in expanding the British Empire, he once boasted: “I would annex the planets if I could.” This spirit of self-interest still motivates nations to control, as far as possible, the political and economic policies of other lands for their own benefit. Japan, for example, having failed to conquer militarily, is sometimes accused of now trying to “conquer” economically.

Is Overthrowing Authoritarian Rule the Solution?

Unlimited power wielded by unprincipled and greedy humans is a curse, not a blessing. Apt are the words of ancient King Solomon: “Look! the tears of those being oppressed, but they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power, so that they had no comforter.”​—Ecclesiastes 4:1.

Under authoritarian rule “the tears of those being oppressed” have indeed been many. In his 1987 book Perestroika, however, Mikhail Gorbachev warned: “It is possible to suppress, compel, bribe, break or blast, but only for a certain period.” Accordingly, despite power being “on the side of their oppressors,” citizens have repeatedly risen up to throw off the shackles of authoritarian government. The bloody overthrow in Romania last December of Nicolae Ceauşescu and his security forces, the Securitate, is a case in point.

Overthrowing authoritarian rule can indeed bring relief. But it is also true, as a Burmese proverb observes, that “only with a new ruler do you realize the value of the old.” Who can guarantee that what was bad will not be replaced by something even worse?

To mention only one example, the authoritarian rule in one Latin-American land was overthrown. The populace was full of hope that things would improve, but did they? Commenting about the situation years later, a newsmagazine said that life had grown, “if anything, worse.” Speaking of skyrocketing inflation, the magazine called the national currency “virtually useless,” bemoaned the country’s inadequate health facilities, and noted that malnutrition was growing. In time, that regime was also removed from power.

Is it not all too obvious that human rule in its every form has been found inadequate? And yet people continue to search for the ideal government. Two outstanding examples of the disappointment to which this can lead, plunging entire nations into the depths of despair with “no comforter,” will be discussed in our next issue.

[Picture on page 21]

An example of an almost absolute autocracy was Russia under the czars

[Credit Line]

Alexander II by Krüger, c. 1855