Totalitarian democracy is a term used by several modern political theorists, commentators and scholars, to describe systems upon which the populace has the right to vote, but the citizens are, in practice, completely destitute of consistent and participative political power. While this term is subject to debate – and there is not a political consensus nor an exact definition concerning its precision or application –, we do have some interesting appointments upon which we can analyze the question. 

A totalitarian democracy – although it would make extensive use of coercion to achieve the goals proposed on its political agenda – would try to capture, or, at least, to give the false impression of a widespread popular approval, for the government to acquire the appearance of legitimate ruler of the people. Currently, the Bolivarian government of Venezuela could be properly classified as a good example. Dissidents are never tolerated: they are persecuted, imprisoned, tortured and unilaterally categorized as fascists. Only what the government approves is considered correct and appropriate. The government desperately tries to assure to everyone, but especially to the outside world, that it represents the people, and the ones who oppose the government oppose the revolution; so, if they are, by association, enemies of the state, they are enemies of the people. This is pure populist rhetoric and platform, that enables the government to persecute each and every dissident that disagrees with the instituted policies. So, basically, the government doesn’t tolerate any defiance to its absolute power. But its constant prerogative would reside in the false proclamation that they represent the people in power. So their actions are always carried out on behalf of the people, and they represent the will of the people.    

It is not that hard to insert or to give a democratic appearance to an otherwise totalitarian government, and this is done mainly by the perception of two major components: the “right to vote” – that serves to legitimize the dictator in power, that always “wins” the elections, and is persistently described as president – and by exercising the total monopoly of culture and information. Whoever manipulates information, has the monopoly of "truth".

Another good example that could be perfectly inserted into this category is Alexander Lukashenko, the president of Belarus since 1994. Technically a dictator, he always wins the periodical elections, and has a system upon which he can maintain absolute power, although the entire political anatomy of the country is disguised as a functional democracy. The total control of government information, however, is guaranteed by brutal repressive agencies, known to kidnap and kill journalists that publish content that are incompatible with the political agenda of the regime, or that publish material considered offensive to Lukashenko, or to the government in general.

Although labeled as a guided democracy, Russia functions by a similar system. A lot of people that antagonized president Vladimir Putin – which is in power since 1999, first acting as Prime Minister, then as president from 2000 onwards, then as Prime Minister again from 2008 to 2012, then as president ever since – were mysteriously assassinated. Journalist Anna Politkovskaya, secret service officer turned defector Alexander Litvinenko, business magnate Boris Berezovsky and political dissident Boris Nemtsov are just the most prominent examples. Vladimir Putin is a member of the oligarch mafia, a criminal organization that exerts complete control over all the political and economic affairs in Russia. They don’t tolerate anyone who interferes with their businesses.   

That being said, a lot of other former soviet countries follows the same political pattern. Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan are interesting examples of nations that could be categorized as totalitarian democracies.    

The culture is an important aspect for a totalitarian regime. As the freedom of artists, journalists and intellectuals is curtailed, they are hunted down by the regime, or coopted to work for the regime, in exchange for money and safety. With support from the cultural elite, it is easier for the government to acquire easily and voluntarily the general support from the population. 

As most totalitarian states try to acquire a consistent appearance of democracy, they will manipulate each and every aspect of social interactions, to achieve the results they find would be the more plausible and attractive ones, to elaborate on the appearances they find the more attractive for the regime. 

As their efforts go towards the expansion of their basis of popularity, the government will be active in political propaganda. Given the fact that they have to be in a very vigilante state, populism will also help the government to acquire an appearance of massive approval from the society, in general.  

But, as I wrote above, totalitarian democracy is a controversial term, that is subject to ongoing debate among political scholars. What defines an autocracy, a dictatorship, a totalitarian regime, or an illiberal democracy are – basically – different perceptions of authoritarianism, and how they interact with the population, and how much of their freedom is actually dissipated.  


Wagner

What would have happened if the Chilean military had not overthrown the socialist president Salvador Allende in a coup d'état that occurred on September 11, 1973? The result would be – certainly – exceedingly disastrous, to say the least. 

Salvador Allende – who was an intimate political associate of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro – evidently would remain in power. Contrary to what happened in Cuba, where Communists seized power in a violent revolution that overthrew the pro-American dictator Fulgencio Batista, in the Republic of Chile, for the regime change, the gradualist approach was adopted, which is more efficient because it’s basically imperceptible. So, the population is incapable to offer any kind of resistance to its implementation. The same technique was applied several decades later to implement socialism in Venezuela, with a great degree of success. As a result, Venezuela became a totalitarian state. 

Salvador Allende was the first Marxist president to reach power in a Latin American country through popular election. After he took office, Fidel sent him a gift, along with a card, where the Cuban dictator greeted him. There, Fidel expressed his loyalty to the revolution; the Cuban dictator asserted to the Chilean president that – although Allende had chosen a different path, a non-aggressive one – they were trying, by distinct forms, to achieve the same political objectives.

Therefore, the two Latin American leaders became political allies. Fidel – an opportunistic psychopath – saw in Chile the perfect opportunity to expand his sphere of political influence on the continent, so he was aiming to introduce the Soviet formula of central government planning of the economy, and sovereign authority of the state over society, into the Andean country. 

Realizing the subtle threat, the US government pressed the Chilean military to take control of the situation, and seize power as soon as possible. A threat of a similar nature posed over Brazil almost a decade earlier, with João Goulart as president of the republic, but he was deposed when the military took power, in 1964. If the biggest country of the region would become communist, the balance of power in the American continent could revert abruptly towards a Soviet Union influenced political arena. With Salvador Allende as head of state, Chile would become a communist totalitarian regime through the implementation of a series of gradualist policies; a path that would eventually convert the nation into a radical leftist democracy. Or, as most people categorize, a dictatorship of the proletariat, better described as a communist tyranny. 

Through Salvador Allende's elusive association with Fidel Castro, Chile would inadvertently become a socialist dictatorship. If the military had not interfered – and preserved the nation from the great invisible threat that was surrounding them – Chile would eventually be converted into a South American version of Cuba.

After a failed coup – known as Tanquetazo, which occurred on June 29, 1973 – the military carried out, a little over two months later, a new attack against the socialist government, and this time they effectively seized power to free the country of the political turmoil in which it would be shattered, if Allende continued in the presidency of the nation. Certainly, the Chileans would fall prisoners of a terrible, catastrophic, aggressive, permissive and cruel totalitarian dictatorship. 

When the military seized power by attacking the presidential palace of La Moneda, Fidel Castro had already positioned approximately several thousand Cuban militiamen in strategic points in Chile, who were ready to launch a violent socialist revolution in the country, which would be catastrophic and would bury any promising future prospects for the nation. Nevertheless, with the possibility of a real war against the Chilean military – and also fearing an unwanted, but probable interference by the US armed forces – Fidel Castro decided to renounce his plan of a direct belligerent offensive.  

It is true that the Chilean military established a dictatorship, that could be described as violent and oppressive, as they suppressed civil liberties, and practically persecuted each and every individual that had ties with Marxism, or the communists. But they did so to prevent the country of becoming a communist dictatorship, which would be a lot worse. If there is something that could redeem them, is the fact that the Chilean army established a free market dictatorship, upon which people enjoyed complete freedom to be productive, to buy, to sell, to start private companies and to fully develop the economy, as they wish. Something that would be impossible in a communist dictatorship, that doesn’t allow the slightest degree of economic freedom to its citizens, and the only choice people have is to be miserable, and to starve to death.

With the continual implementation of economic liberalization policies, Chile evolved to be the most prosperous and developed country of Latin America, the only one that is truly capitalist, and that has a real free market system. This would not be the case, had the country continued under the leadership of president Salvador Allende, that would gradually had transformed Chile into a communist dictatorship. 



​Wagner

Vakhtang VI of Georgia was a king of the Bagrationi dynasty, that ruled the medieval Georgian Kingdom of Kartli, from 1716 to 1724. A monarch that was also a prominent intellectual – a poet, an erudite and a notable scholar, besides other attributions – Vakhtang is considered a historic icon and a national hero within his home country. 

Born in September 1675, Vakhtang begun his rule as a regent, first for his uncle, and then for his brother. Precociously exhibiting features of a real statesman, the monarch conjured major reforms in several aspects of Georgian society, to showcase his fondness for improvement. Culture, economy, legislation, politics and government administration were the most benefited areas – some of them directly executed and monitored by his initiative, upon which he demonstrated his versatile abilities –, although Vakhtang also worked heavily to consolidate his leadership. Unfortunately, early in his reign, he was subject to disgrace. As the Georgian Kingdom of Kartli was a vassal state of the Iranian Safavid dynasty, he needed recognition from the central authorities of the empire to rule; something that Sultan Husayn was eager to grant, but only if Vakhtang embraced Islam, something the monarch refused to do. Vakhtang was then imprisoned. 

Vakhtang then tried to reverse his fortunes, by writing letters to catholic monarchs, archbishops and church authorities all over Europe, requesting their help. He appealed to several eminent people, even writing that he was secretly a catholic, but could not be explicit about his beliefs in the territory of the Safavid empire, by virtue of Islamic predominance. Vakhtang even wrote a letter to the Pope, but, in general, the monarch was ostensibly ignored. All his efforts proved to be pointless. With increasing pressure from the central authorities, Vakhtang became severely distressed; so much so, that, in the end, he succumbed to the overwhelming pressure, and converted to Islam.  

Adopting the legal name of Husayn-Qoli Khan, Vakhtang found himself forced to absorb several religious, cultural and social aspects of Islam, and temporarily lost control of his kingdom, being obliged to name a regent on his behalf, although he gained political control of another provinces and vassal states of the Savafid empire.

After an absence of about seven years, Vakhtang was requested to return, to put an end to the unrest caused by Dagestani tribes invading the region, something he had successfully executed, although with the help of military leaders of neighboring provinces. 

Nevertheless, as political grievances with the Savafid authorities grew severely, Vakhtang became increasingly distressed and disturbed. Secretly, he arranged a political treatise with the Russians, and changed alliances, fomenting the war that would soon disrupt between the two great regional powers, as a means to possibly scape the Safavid despotic rule. By this time, the Ottoman Empire also offered Vakhtang the possibility of an alliance, which he refused, believing the Russians would be more effective.

Fortunately, for Vakhtang, the Safavid dynasty was in a period of great political turmoil. Constant invasions, belligerent altercations and violent rebellions broke out in several regions of the empire, practically dismantling the country. Despite the fact that Vakhtang had family members in important leadership positions of the Persian army, the monarch was – by this time – exceedingly distressed in his efforts to free his kingdom from the oppressive Safavid rule. 

Unfortunately, Vakhtang was betrayed by his Russian allies, that preferred not to confront the Ottoman military, that was anxious to reclaim Persian territory. Completely abandoned and without any help, Vakhtang was stripped of his kingdom and his authority. Desperate, he tried to exchange alliances with the ottomans, but it was too late. They already had expressed preference for his brother, putting him as a puppet monarch, head of the Kingdom of Kartli. Disgraced, Vakhtang was granted political asylum by the Russians, who silently loathed him as a shameful, scorned and weak national leader. 

Never admitting real defeat, Vakhtang – after some years –, elaborated a plan to return to Georgia, and persuade his comrades to change sides, swear loyalty to the Tzar, and become a vassal state of the Russian empire. Nevertheless, he died on his journey, in March, 1737, never having the chance to fulfil the task. 


Wagner