I also learned of efforts to distinguish between totalitarianism and authoritarianism. Paul C. Sondrol of the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs attempted to outline such such distinctions. But they have been subjected to critical review and have been found to be far from universally accepted. From my point of view, the critique of totalitarianism by Karl Popper is far more relevant. A key element in his critique is that those who would impose a totalitarian order on society turn to "nature," or "The Law of History." Or, I would argue, they turn to God to legitimize their authority.
Others who have written on this subject include Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Their analysis has been challenged by Karl Dietrich Bracher as being too narrow. The historian, Walter Laqueur strongly favors Bracher's analysis.
Much that has been written on this subject, but the writings have has centered largely on that period of history when communism and fascism were the the dark forces being faced by the West. What seems less appreciated is the extent to which these writings can be applied to more current history.
I'd like to turn to the era of General Augusto Pinochet. Liberals, and forces on the left, bemoan what was America's tacit support of Pinochet. Was Pinochet an authoritarian leader? Unquestionably. But, the forces he fought were leftists whose methods were hardly less authoritarian. These two contending forces differed primarily on their views of the laws of history and how they perceived these laws. The leftists focused on social justice and the inequities in Chilean society. They sought to correct these inequities through central direction of the economy by the government.
Pinochet looked to free-market economics. He supported the efforts of his economists; men, who had come under the influence of Milton Friedman's teachings. Pinochet, as it turned out, had the superior idea. Poverty in Chile has gone from 40% to 14%. There is still poverty in Chile, but improvement has been dramatic. The one last peg for leftists to hang their hats on is the disparity between the very rich and the rest of Chilean society.
I would finally note, on the matter of Pinochet, that the man turned over power to democratic forces in a peaceful manner. Perhaps he had had no choice. Perhaps he did. But his having done this in a peaceful manner is greatly under appreciated. Also, greatly under appreciated is his having instituted sound economic principals for his nation to follow.
Today, the west faces another totalitarian force; namely, Islamic fundamentalism. This force has succeeded in befuddling the western mind. I think it's because of its religious underpinnings. In short, the Islamist justifies everything he chooses to institute based on the word of God as given to man by Mohammed.
In the West, religious conflict is something that was experienced hundreds of years ago. That doesn't mean that such conflict hasn't lingered in one form or another to this day. But what emerged in the interim is the growth of secularism. In the U.S. we have a Constitution that sets forth a separation of Church and State. Religions still try to have laws passed based on their views of God's will, e.g. "right to life." But, ultimately, whether the views of parties to a particular religious point of view prevail is determined by the larger population. In the west, that population is largely secular despite various religious affiliations.
A religion that seeks to make its will manifest through force (based on God's will) is something
relatively new to our society. But, clearly, it's something we must come to grips with and to do so pretty soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment