What lessons can be learnt from the study of past dictatorships?

Dictatorships are characterized by certain features and we often associate a dictatorial regime with the denial of liberties. In a dictatorship, power may be vested in a single person or in a ruling elite. We have heard of military dictatorships. The avowed aim of a dictator has been the reconstruction of society on the basis of an ideology. This ideology may be well-formulated and be the result of firm convictions. The grandiose schemes proposed by the dictator may not be fully implemented, and there has been often a gap between theory and practice. The ideology and the proposed schemes appeal to the people, and initially there may be popular support. The dictator resorts to terror and force, and the anxiety about the future that develops in the minds of the people owing to the use of power compels them to demonstrate their loyalty to the dictator even when the sharp distinction between theory and practice becomes clear. The demands of political society supersedes the rights of private citizens. In the following essay, Geneva under Calvin, Germany under Hitler and Russia under Stalin are considered to point out what we learn from a study of past dictatorships.

Dictatorship may be defined as the rule of a person or a group whose exercise of power generally rests less on consensus and more on coercion. The dictator, whose power is unlimited in scope, exercises it in an arbitrary manner by decree rather than by law. In Roman republican times, in times of emergency, constitutional rule was suspended and a dictator was appointed for a period of time. Then dictatorship was an expedient used to galvanize national power for the benefit of the nation. The dictator obtained his position by force or consent or by a combination of both. Dictatorships of this century, generally speaking, can be traced to socialist origins. In the twentieth century, the dictatorships that arose were based on ideologies. Significant examples are Nazi Germany under Hitler, Fascist Italy and the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia.
An examination of the dictatorships in Italy, Germany and Russia shows that the dictators assumed power to translate their ideologies into realities and to create a new social order. Dictators champion the cause of the majority and ambitious schemes of national development are proposed to appeal to the people. Ideology may be defined as a comprehensive, coherent, action-oriented system of ideas. This may be a well-developed philosophy as in Russia or it may be a set of slogans as in Hitler’s Germany. This ideology provides a sense of identity. Loyalty to ideology soon gives way to loyalty to the ruler. Either the charismatic ruler, on assuming power, wields the significant power or the group or party that rules takes on charismatic aspects.

Dictators, to exercise total control over the population, adopt different, extreme measures. To make this total control possible, the instruments of power that are employed are organised police force, surveillance equipment, weapons and rapid transportation. The secret police pervades social life. Entertainment is dictated by the ruler in power. In Calvinist Geneva, dancing, dramatic presentations and even lavish dresses were banned. In dictatorial regimes books are censored and correspondence opened. Dissent is seriously dealt with. People with divergent views are subjected to punishment. Terrorist control dominates prison life. Control is also attempted by imprisoning people without trial and by forced residential movement, night-time arrests without warrant and the banning of meetings. The terror tactics adopted by dictators produce mass anxiety and deep personal insecurity and uncertainty about the future. Personal anxiety and the sense of insecurity compel the citizens to demonstrate their loyalty to the dictator or the dictatorial regime. The punitive, rigid attitude adopted by the leader or the ruling group wins. In course of time, the unquestioning loyalty of the people would have engendered admiration for toughness and contempt for weakness.

A lesson that we learn from past dictatorships is the gap between promise and practice. Dictators assumed power by declaring grandiose schemes for the betterment of the people, but in practice, after assuming power, they adopted a cynical attitude and ignored the schemes. Hitler promised to protect the small business against what he called the ‘parasitic’ large industries. He also promised the restoration of tne agricultural society by sending people to farms. He did achieve the consolidation of economic power and centralisation of large industries, but this was at the expense of small businessmen and after the movement of the people from agricultural areas to industrial centres. In course of time, religious beliefs were replaced by the gospel of national socialism, and Hitler's close followers came to refer to him as ‘saviour’. In Stalin’s Russia, the principle of the public ownership of the means of production was put into practice, but the state did not 'wither away’ and the productive resources were not controlled by the workers. In fact, many of the professed theories were repudiated. Stalin assumed that the principle of equal rewards was counter-productive and he encouraged the party bureaucrats to become the dominant rulers.



In a dictatorship the demands of political society supersedes the rights of private individuals. In Calvin’s Geneva (1541-1564), people were denied their elementary liberties. The laws set forth by the dictator with the help of the religious officials were intended to exercise comprehensive control over the inhabitants, even attempting to regulate the style of dress and forms of entertainment. This control of the population was found necessary to secure a new man in a new society. The people had to, owing to terror and coercion, abandon their cherished ideas and beliefs and affirm absolute loyalty to the state and the dictator’s ideology of morally perfect citizens. To ensure the reconstruction of society, the dictator had to have an effective instrument of power which was extended to even the private life of citizens.

Germany under Hitler and Geneva under Calvin bring to us the basic ideal the people had to subscribe to in justifying the legitimacy of the dictator whose power was unrestrained. The Calvinist elite claimed themselves to be God’s elect who had the power to rule. The Nazi view was that man was born corrupt and that he had to be civilised and his evil urges controlled. People needed a strong personal leader, a superman. They had to affirm their loyalty to the Fuhrer, Hitler. Dictatorship, it is learnt, demands loyalty to the ruler or the ruling elite.

Dictatorships have amply demonstrated the underlying belief that supports the regime: that the ruler or the elite group is infallible. This leads to the worship of authority, which is contrary to the scientific spirit. The history of dictatorships teaches us that power amassed is used for the advantage of the governing class. The engine of oppression employed by the dictators for the complete unification of economic and political power restricts intellectual liberty and makes progress difficult, if not impossible. Dictators aim at moulding a population in accordance with a preconceived pattern. Spontaneous growth, which has been found to be productive of certain results, is not allowed. Thus individuals become distorted and the espoused concept is not found to be politically successful. If the dictator is with little human sympathy, he will be ruthless and his love of power will be camouflaged as the desire for a certain type of society. The original purposes would be lost sight of and the dictator's power will be utilised for reserving his position.