Paul Sondrol undertakes a comaparative analysis of Fidel Castro in Cuba and Alfredo Stoessner in Paraguay according to an Authoritarian-Totalitarian framework and evalutates the usefulness of that dichotomy for studying dictatorial regimes. Sondrol contends that it, ‘remains a powerful and effective tool’ of analysis for the study on non-democratic regimes.
According to Sondrol, there are three main points of difference between totalitarian and authoritarian dictators, namely their Charisma, the conception of their role and the ends of the power they wield. Authoritarian leaders are dull and uninspiring in contrast to totalitarian dictators who are ‘charismatic’ and have a pseudo-prophetic role. The totalitarian dictator is the only person who can discern the will of the people and has a ‘mystical’ bond with the masses, both controlling and representing the people in a close bond with their followers. A totalitarian dictator seeks to personify the state, pary and people.
Secondly, totalitarian leaders see their role as having an ideological mission or purpose. Totalitarians seek to destroy the previous order of state and society and fundamentally transform it according to ideological principles towards a prophetic vision or utopian destiny. The central figure of state and society, the totalitarian both seeks to create and demands a populace united and politicsed towards this goal. Importantly totalitarian rulers pursue active and aggressive foreign policy, challenging foreign enemies to maintain the unity of society and to keep it mobilised towards the leader’s goals. Another tactic of totalitarian dictators is to seek to destroy traditional identities or allegiances in society such as religious insititutions andregional identities to remove differing opinions and unify society behind them.
Authoritarian leaders, in contrast, take no such role for themselves, and are content to rule unopposed. Authoritarians do not desire to remold society and are more aware of the constraints on their rule and difficulty of actually changing culture and society. They seek to control only the political life of their state, not the social and cultural spheres. Authoritarians accept a more pluralisitc society and do not demand complete unity or popular engagement with the ruler. Instead they rely on fear and a depoliticised, apathetic populace to hold power.
Finally Sondrol sees authoritarian regimes as being fundamentally corrupt, with their leaders focussed on lining their pockets from the wealth of their states. Authoritarians additionally use corruption as anessential means of maintain support for their rule, creating patronage networks of loyal cronies. In contrast totalitarians do not seek private enrichment as a goal of power or a means of gaining support.
Fidel Castro led Cuba from the Cuban Revolution in 1959 to his retirement in 2008 while Alfredo Stroessner ruled in Paraguay from 1954 when he took over in a coup to 1989 when he was deposed in the same manner. Both leaders ruled in highly personalised regimes but while Fidel Castro is a totalitarian dictator to Sondrol, Stroessner is an Authoritarian with some proto-totalitarian features.
Castro’s Cuba is a totalitarian regime as, ‘overwhelming governmental power encroaches upon virtually every aspect of Cuban life’ and no autonomous groups existed independent of Castro. He served as an inspirational and messianic leader, exhorting an anti-imperialist struggle both in Cuba and overseas in Africa and Asia. Castro displays a personality cult based on his own brand of Marxist-Leninism,a ‘messianic’ relationship with the Cuban masses, and a ‘revulsion’ to materialsim, graft and corruption. Sondrol sees these all as features of totalitarian rule. Sondrol sees Castro differing from other totalitarians with the influence of the hispanic Caudillo tradition of strongman dictators.
Alfredo Stroessner , in contrast, is seen by Sondrol as an authoritarian with totalitarian features. Sondrol sees Stroessner as having little personal charisma, but sees in his popularity and control and penetration of the military and his mass-based ruling Colorado party features of totalitariansim. His manipulations of Paraguayan myths and values, use of ceremony and symbolism helped maintain mass support for his rule. Like Castro he also draws upon the strong Caudillo heritage of Latin America. The absence of a drving ideology to his rule beyond a consevative desire to remain in power however, marks him as authoritarian to Sondrol. The proliferation of corruption throughout his regime, both for his enrichment and for a system of clientelism that helped keep him in power meets the third criteria for authoritarianism for Stoessner.
Sondrol concludes that the Totalitarian vs Authoriatarian remains a valuable tool of analysis, but the mixed case of Stroessner to him suggests they should be seen as relative concepts , not absolute categories.
This piece strongly relates to our current focus on class on the distinction between totalitariand and authoritarian regimes and what that means in practice and also to the regime classification task as it provides a system and puts in practice a means of differentiating the two systems of rule. It also shows the importance of local and historical context when looking at non-democratic regimes, in this case the Caudillo tradition of Latin America.
One issue I have with Sondrol’s analysis is that it based on highly personalised regimes, it is less clear how effective it is when it comes to more institutionalised regimes such as the present day People’s Republic of China. The concept of charisma in particular seems useful only for personalised regimes as an analytic tool.
Source:
Excellent summary and discussion, Alasdair. Is the characterization of Stroessner as a proto-totalitarian convincing? Was there a genuine ideological view in his rule?
ReplyDelete