• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

What are the main differences between 'liberal democratic', 'authoritarian' and 'totalitarian' political systems?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

What are the main differences between 'liberal democratic', 'authoritarian' and 'totalitarian' political systems? Defining political systems is a difficult thing to do as no single system is completely static, they often change dependant on things like war and trends in regimes, such as the recent insurgence in 'liberal democracies' means that the classifications of systems changes over time. The British Westminster system is considered to be a 'liberal democracy' however in the Second World War there were several powers exercised by the government which do not fit with this type of system for example control was exercised over the media and labour and elections were put off. These powers were only used as a result of the emergency situation, seemingly with the support of the masses and once the war was over the situation reverted to that of the pre war era but this illustrate how it can be difficult to apply all encompassing guidelines which finitely define a certain political system. Taking this into consideration though it is still important to have some level of classification in place so that the systems can first of all be more easily understood and also so that they can be assessed as to how effective they are and how they could be improved. In order to consider the differences between three political systems: 'liberal democratic', 'authoritarian' and 'totalitarian' the individual definitions must first be established then any similarities and differences evaluated and finally the practical consequences of these must be highlighted. ...read more.

Middle

Another sub category would be a military regime where the power has more been seized and the military are either directly in control or they are in close alliance with appointed government officials. Military regimes are in use in Pakistan. Totalitarianism is an extremist authoritarian system which is not really in use anymore. Totalitarianism has been defined by Fredrich and Brzezinski (1963); a totalitarian state is based on a strong, clearly defined ideology and operates under a one party political system. The ideology seeks to change society and the people who make it up; it is a completely invasive system which controls all aspects of life. The media and mass communication are controlled by the state, presenting only the messages the party want to be heard. The masses are kept in line by force with a brutal police system in place. The final characteristic identified by Fredrich and Brzeznski is that the state exercises complete control over the economy. All of these combine to produce the desired result of eradicating civil society and 'the private'. Linz (2000) defined totalitarian systems as 'a regime form for completely organizing political life and society' Hague (2004: 53). The fascist and communists states which existed in Europe in the twentieth century were totalitarian in style. The first, most fundamental difference between 'liberal democratic' and 'authoritarian' regimes is the democracy; non-democratic states are authoritarian. ...read more.

Conclusion

Trying instead, wherever possible to keep good relations with any country they may wish to trade with. The differences between authoritarian and totalitarian system are obviously harder to define as the systems are so similar in many ways. The main theoretical difference, which obviously spurns other practical ones, is that under a totalitarian regime there is a very definite ideology and the aim of the regime to penetrate every aspect of life and change society with this ideal in mind. Authoritarian states on the other hand operate merely as a system of power 'from above' where the subjects have no recourse. Because of this difference a totalitarian system will be much more extreme and invasive than an authoritarian one. In a totalitarian state there is no civil society, trade unions, businesses etc independent of government. Totalitarian systems, as they are so radical by definition do not offer any long term options; the regimes is attempting and enforcing change, once this change has been successfully implemented the system would then strictly speaking no longer be a totalitarian state and would simply be authoritarian. In conclusion authoritarian and totalitarian systems are very similar though they do have some fundamental differences whereas liberal democracy is inextricably different from both. The most important difference is the legitimacy of the power being exercised by the government. This massively affects the stability of a nation; people who feel they have control over the politics in their country are much less likely to revolt. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Politics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Politics essays

  1. Minority Rights, Identity Politics and Gender in Bangladesh: Current Problems and Issues

    Economic rehabilitation is perhaps the most common kind of policies, which is addressed towards women as victims of conflict. It is of course a much-needed intervention since many women who were traditionally homemakers and had little or no exposure to public life, are left alone to fend for their families.

  2. To what extent was religion the main causeOf rebellion in the reign of Henry ...

    Mary had been bastardised by Henry and others, by the divorcing of Cathrine of Aragon. But now Mary had been reinstated as Princess, so this now created a huge rift towards the Boleyn faction. Through out court there had always been a fight between those that supported the Aragon faction, and those who supported the Boleyn faction.

  1. 'THE SEPERATION OF POWERS: FACT OR FICTION UNDER THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION?'

    This is not objectionable, so long as there is careful inspection and control of the Government's legislative programme by the legislature. When the Government's party has a large majority in the Common there is almost no opportunity for Parliament to regulate the passage of legislation.

  2. The Negative Impact Of World War 1 On Italy: Weaknesses Of The Liberal State, ...

    These soldiers missed the comradeship of the trenches and some formed themselves into squads to fulfil their desire for action and strong government. These squads were another divisive, destabilising factor. Nationalists also had an example of what decisive action could achieve.

  1. Evaluate the factors that affect the legitimacy of political systems

    Just as policies can increase legitimacy they too can decrease legitimacy. If a government cannot provide the basics for their people then the legitimacy inevitably is lessened. If people cannot rely their government to give them a decent lifestyle then their trust in that government has no grounds to exist.

  2. How has the role and impact of military rulers and civilian politicians differed in ...

    Through the power of his mandate he after a harsh confrontation with the Chief Justice of Supreme court made him tender his resignation. This crisis was erupted when the Chief Justice of Supreme court asked for the elevation of three senior judges of high court to the Supreme Court.

  1. How Democratic is the UK?

    would be for the following four years and a party's policies have the ability to drastically change within four years. The civil service do remain largely neutral, which is a very democratic factor. In Britain there is freedom of speech, expression, thought and association, this is of course within legal

  2. The American Civil War

    His Southern appointments were even more ill conceived. As Civil War historian Allan Nevins observed, "If pliability marked Pierce's dealings with the Northern factions, downright flabbiness characterized his relations with those of the South (47). He chose as his secretary of war Jefferson Davis, arguably the most vocal of the secessionists and the future president of the Confederacy.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work