When we talk about non-democratic regimes, we often refer to their political ideologies rather than their regime types. For example, when talking about the Soviet Union, we say something along the lines of "they lived under communist rule." But wouldn't it be more accurate to separate communist/socialist ideologies from their oppressive rulers? What I mean by this is are these ideologies inherently anti-democratic? I would say they are not (based on my high school reading of the Communist Manifesto), so it would therefore be inaccurate to describe the Soviet regime as purely 'communist' when the aspect that many of us find so distasteful is the repression and the totalitarian nature of the governance structure.
Here is the point I am trying to convey: it is inaccurate to conflate an ideology with a regime type. It would appear that governments set up in the name of communism have led to authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, but democracies have led to repressive regimes too: post-Soviet democracy in Russia brought Putin to power and Putin still operates under the guise of democracy. Today, we can agree that Russia, despite Kremlin propaganda, is not a democracy and that Putin's regime is authoritarian. In this circumstance we don't conflate ideology and regime type. I would argue that the same is true when considering the past: the Soviet Union was not a communist nation but was a totalitarian regime operating under the guise of a popular ideology (socialism/communism).
Thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment