Can historical parallels be drawn between democracies and dictatorships?

Authors Avatar

Rituparna Roy

NAME: Rituparna Roy

SUBJECT: Extended Essay

CANDIDATE NUMBER: 1226-070

CAN HISTORICAL PARALLELS BE DRAWN BETWEEN DEMOCRACIES AND DICTATOIRSHIPS

Word Count:

Introduction

Can historical parallels be drawn between democracies and dictatorships?

History is more than a string of events and a relationship between them. We are involved with a subject which deals with some eternal truths and generalizations. We are really involved with the same basic phenomenon which repeats themselves in different contexts and at different periods of time. The range of historical events ranges from the bizarre and inexplicable, like the burning of Rome, to the more mundane, such as the fall of governments and the formation of alliances and treaties. Is it strange that the burning of the Rome at the time of Nero, is so oddly similar to the burning of the Reichstag many years later in 1933? Perhaps not, when we compare the two persons who were responsible for both these acts. Both were dictators, both were insecure, both usurpers in their own right. Both hated a community which was fated to suffer immeasurably till they saw better days. Both were narcissists and both loved to be loved. Both were betrayed in their last days. Both loved to be thought of as artists, the one as a musician (if historical records are to be believed) and the other as a slighted and unrecognized painter.

In what seems to be one of the most important focal areas of historical interest- kinds of governance- there seems to be similarities which transcend time, age, context and political situations. In the historically present, there seems to be two basic surviving forms of governance: democracy and dictatorship. The one is based on the individuals by the majority of people. The other is based on the choices and contribution of one person, who is a self proclaimed leader and has assumed powers without the consent of the electorate. The emphasis in the latter case, is on the choices made by the dictator, on his perception and on his vision of the future of his state. The second has been designated by many social psychologists, in particular by the father of analytical psychology, Jung, as a pathological state. He, more than any other analytical psychologist, had understood the implications of the political developments taking place in the Nazi state during the period between the two wars interpreting the coming of the Nazi dictatorship as an abdication on the part of the self, he had, in words which may not be correct politically, and culturally termed the Nazi as a blond beast, (die blond Bestie) who had blindly submitted to his unconscious “Germanic” inclination to abdicate personal responsibility in favour of the following the “mass”: the result of which was an unforeseen destruction, but more important perhaps, the annihilation of over half of Jewish community.

Where do we draw the line between democracy and dictatorship in practical terms? That a democracy can be malevolent as a dictatorship cannot be ruled out. But it is rather difficult in a true democracy, for reasons we shall elaborate later on, to fool the public. A malevolent leader in a democracy can be identified quite easily, though this may not always happen. And upon this be removed, though this too may not always happen. A true democracy is self-corrective, which a dictatorship is not. This does not prelude the fact that a democracy cannot be perverted and deviated from it’s objective of a governance. A self-corrective mechanism does not automatically ensure longevity or permanence. Self-corrective mechanisms can be subverted, as in the Indian scenario, where an emergency was proclaimed by the Indira Gandhi Government from 1975 to 1977, after amending the constitution.

History tells us that many common trends can be seen in democracies although these democracies have been separated by time and distance. Similarly dictatorships ranging from the Roman to the present time have shown similar trends.

Hence the objective of this study; to study the parallelism in various democracies and dictatorships through time.

Body

        We look at various phases of a government in the world like, patriarchisim, tribalism, feudalism, despotism, constitutionalism, democracy, dictatorships, as being separate evolutions or forms applying hap-hazard, helter-skelter, to particular races, circumstances, and conditions. However we often fail to see the underlying pattern of unvarying design of the various phases of a government, especially of the latter two types mentioned above (since in this essay we are dealing with those two). Essentially what we will see in this essay is a widespread exhibit of the various stages of growth and decline of the two types of governments. A perfect example of the whole completed cycle of governments is Rome, for instance. The various stages through which Rome went are as follows- primitive tyranny, republicanism, decay, dictatorship, monarchy, and destruction, are as clearly marked in the Republic, the Consulate, the Empire, and the Fall.

Join now!

        We will begin by looking at patterns of five typical types of dictatorships and the people who led them: what fuelled the dictatorships, the kind of people, the kind of leaders, the social needs etc. The five dictatorships taken under consideration are the Alexandrian type of dictatorship in Macedonia, the Roman type under Caesar, the Stalinist type and the Hitlerian type. This will be useful in finding parallels with five major democracies in the world. The five major democracies chosen are; Greek, Roman (the free period), the Swiss period (19th century), American democracy (18th century) and the Indian democracy (20th century).

...

This is a preview of the whole essay