New Telegraph

Plutocracy, Totalitarianism vs Democracy: Comparing Oranges and Apples (8)

MIKE OZEKHOME san, ofr

INTRODUCTION

 

When governance becomes the whims and infuriated schemes of a small powerful, wealthy minority that only listens to itself, unmodified by the normal checks and balances of a functioning constitutional democracy, it should be treated by the non-partisan as what it is, plutocracy or totalitarianism. It is certainly not democracy. Today, we shall x-ray how plutocracy, and totalitarianism differ from democracy.

 

PLUTOCRACY

 

Said CHRYTIA FREELAND, author of Plutocrats: “The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else, says that the present trend towards plutocracy occurs because the rich feel that their interests are shared by society”.

 

ORIGIN OF PLUTOCRACY

 

Viewing Plutocracy from the lens of history and collection of other governance concepts will reveal that the concept is as old as the evolution of man himself, governance concepts and political theories.

 

There have been many plutocracies down through history, Carthage, Italian city-states of the Middle Ages were plutocracies. Other historic examples of plutocracies include the Roman Empire, some city-states in Ancient Greece, Merchant Republics of Venice, Florence and Genoa, and the pre-World War II Empire of Japan (the zaibatsu).

 

It was chronicled that early kings of Carthage were military leaders, and being a monarchical country, the Sovereign or Crown was generally available to the highest bidder. The Italian city-states of the Middle Ages were good examples of plutocracies, and in many ways, they ran the show in medieval Europe.

 

History also has it that the United States was founded as a plutocratic state. From the incipient, one of the major criteria for enfranchisement in the United States Of America was the mass acquisition of land and landed properties. In other words, the qualification for voting was benched on vast ownership of land.

 

For a person to vote, he had to own land. You must prove that your wealth was above a certain threshold; that you belonged to the land-owning class. You also had to be a white male in order to vote and you may well have owned African slaves.

 

This reinforced the idea that “democracy” was not really a core concern at the time. Gradually, black men were allowed to vote, later even women, of all people. It was gradual, but tortous.

 

DEFINITION OF PLUTOCRACY

 

The concept plutocracy is widely used dyslogistically to describe or admonish against an undesirable condition. Plutocracy or plutarchy is a society that is ruled or controlled by people of great wealth or income.

Unlike systems such as Democracy, Capitalism, Socialism or Anarchism, Plutocracy is not rooted in an established political philosophy. Plutocracy is linked to the term dynastic wealth. Plutocracy is also a type of state government controlled by a wealthy oligarchy. This is unsurprising, since wealth can easily be translated into power and power can easily be consolidated for purposes of political control. Also, wealth can easily be used to create more wealth.

 

Power and wealth are lovers. This naturally leads to the well-worn division of the “Haves” versus the “Have-Nots”; and to the consolidation of political power in the hands of the Haves. There weren’t always state governments, because there weren’t always states, anyway.

 

Contemporarily, the concept of Plutocracy is used derogatorily. It is sometimes used to refer to societies deeply ingrained in state-corporate capitalism, or whose ultimate priority is the obsene and primitive accumulation of wealth over other interests. In agreement with the above position, Kevin Phillips, an author and political strategist to Richard Nixon, once opined that the United States is a plutocracy in which there is a “fusion of money and government.”

 

ACCEPTABILITY OF PLUTOCRACY

 

A number of politicians have never agreed that they work as a plutocracy, even when the last four {4} decades has certainly been run by plutocrats, with plutocracy thriving incredibly and successfully, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the populace. It creates a disharmony and enthrones class differences to distract the poor masses from their thievery.

 

This is exemplified by some USA politicians: Honest Abe was not for plutocracy when he championed free soil, free labor and free education for all. Progressives were not for plutocracy when they got the USA country in the Trust Busting mood.

 

Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson were certainly not for plutocracy when they promoted civil rights legislation and an extension and renewal of some of the New Deal policies of the past.

 

In a nutshell, Plutocracy can be summed up in the following words: Private store of money by few individuals for their own interest; Medium of extracting tribute; Unsafe store of values; Small number of people running the show and getting a whole lot of shockers to work for them; Legalization of sectional reserve system and wealth. Sikena!!!

 

TOTALITARIANISM

 

Benito Mussolini coined the term “totalitario” in the early 1920s to characterize the new fascist state of Italy, which he further described as “all within the state, none outside the state, and none against the state.

 

ORIGIN OF TOTALITARIANISM

 

The term “totalitarianism” is traceable to the fascist era of the 1920s and 1930s, and it was first widely used by Italian fascist theorists, including Giovanni Gentile.

 

It gradually advanced to include not just an extreme idea, or often impracticable dictatorships of the far right, but also Communist regimes, especially that of the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin.

 

It is still frequently associated with Cold War thoughts of the 1940s and 1950s, a period during which it was most commonly exploited as a governance terminology; although its thoughtful implications surpasses that era’s political fears and wordcraft.

 

MEANING OF TOTALITARIANISM

 

“Totalitarianism” as used here denotes the most extreme modern dictatorial tendency of possessing perfectionist and utopian conceptions of mankind and society. It is a form of rule in which the government attempts to maintain ‘total’ control over society, including all aspects of the public and private lives of its citizens.

 

It is also a form of government that theoretically tends to infringe on individual liberties with absolute impunity and that solicits to cow all aspects of individual life to the authority of the state.

 

One of the tenets of totalitarianism is also that, traditional social institutions and organizations are dissuaded, repressed and suppressed. Thus, the social structure is feeble, frail and people become more persuaded to assimilate into a single, unified movement.

 

 

The scenario is likened to that of totalitarian Joseph Stalin and the proverbial chicken, whose feathers he heartily plucked off, but still returned to feed on grains from his palm.

 

This is a clear case of the Stocholm Syndrome. In the seventeenth century, the proponent absolute or autocratic governments and royalists, such as Thomas Hobbes and Jacques Bossuet, advocated, in variety of ways, a virile and concentrated state as a guarantor against any form of abyss or dissident that is not in conformity with natural law and biblical precedents.

 

Nevertheless, totalitarianism, properly understood as a political reality, was conceptualized in the early twentieth century by Thinkers such as Carl Schmitt in Germany and Giovanni Gentile in Italy who helped to lay the foundations of fascist ideology, emphasizing the defensive and unifying advantages of dictatorship.

 

 

ATTRIBUTES/FEATURES OF TOTALITARIANISM

 

A conventional way of describing totali-  tarianism is to present a list of characteristics common to Italian Fascism, German National Socialism, and Soviet Bolshevism.

 

Other regimes may also be included— notably, Chinese Communism under the rule of Mao, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), and Pol Pot’s “Democratic Cambodia.”) Despite the many differences among totalitarian states, they have several characteristics in common, of which the most important are:

 

A Single mass party, typically led by a dictator; System of terror, using such instruments as violence and secret Police; Monopoly of weapons; Monopoly on the means of communication; Central direction and control of the economy through state planning; the existence of an ideology that addresses all aspects of life and outlines means to attain the final goal; a single mass party through which the people are mobilized to muster energy and support.

 

The party is generally led by a dictator and, typically, participation in politics, especially voting, is compulsory; The party leadership maintains monopoly control over the governmental system, which includes the police, military, communications, and economic and education systems; Dissent is systematically suppressed and people terrorized by a secret Police; Autocracies through the ages have attempted to exercise control over the lives of their subjects, by whatever means were available to them, including the use of secret Police and military force.

 

However, only with modern technology have governments acquired the means to control society. Therefore, totalitarianism is, historically, a recent phenomenon.

 

DISTINCTION BETWEEN TOTALITARIANISM AND OTHER FORMS OF GOVERNMENT

 

Totalitarianism is often distinguished from other forms of government, by supplanting of all political institutions with new ones and the sweeping away of all legal, social, and political traditions.

 

The totalitarian state pursues some special goals, such as industrialization or conquest, to the exclusion of all others. All resources are directed toward its attainment, regardless of the cost. Whatever might further the goal is supported; whatever might foil the goal is rejected.

 

This obsession spawns an ideology that explains everything in terms of the goal, rationalizing all obstacles that may arise and all forces that may contend with the state.

 

The resulting popular support permits the state the widest latitude of action of any form of government. Any dissent is branded evil, and internal political differences are not permitted. Because the pursuit of the goal is the only ideological foundation for the totalitarian state, achievement of the goal can never be acknowledged. (To be continued).

 

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

 

“People live with the illusion that we have a democratic system, but it’s only the outward form of one. In reality we live in a plutocracy, a government of the rich.” (Jose Saramago).

• Follow me on twitter @ MikeozekhomeSAN

Read Previous

Fashola: PDP must think better to defeat APC in 2023

Read Next

Okechukwu wants support for Eguavoen

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *