Totalitarian Analysis

Totalitarian and Authoritarian Dictators: A Comparison of Fidel Castro and Alfredo Stroessner Author(s): Paul C. Sondrol Source: Journal of Latin American Studies, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Oct., 1991), pp. 599-620 Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/157386 Accessed: 27/10/2008 04:48
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial
Modern totalitarians justify their dictatorships as a reflection of this volontege'nerale that only the dictator truly discerns.7 Classic totalitarian and authoritarian precursors intersect in Max Weber's pioneering analysis of' charismatic' leadership. Charisma (the gift of grace) is heaven-sent, irrational, emotive and popular. Weberian charisma consists in a leader's apparent possession of superhuman qualities; a messianic vision and role in determining the course of human events. Charisma also implies a close personal union between inspirational leader and willing followers, legitimising rulership. The leader bears the collective will of the people. Tenure is not dependent upon the superficiality of elections; rather, the leader is 'elected' from on high.8 Dictators such as Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin defined themselves in terms of prophetic, personal qualities elevating them beyond the rank and file. Their dictatorships created a mystical bond with the masses, merging authority with control and representation into a leadership principle and (FiihrerprinZip) absolutist regime (Fihrerstat). The unique mission and transcendental qualities of these totalitarians were functional requisites to their ideological imperatives demanding the wholesale destruction, restructuring and expansion of state and society, domestically and internationally. Totalitarians thus appear to possess what Hannah Arendt calls a 'truer
Dictators like Stroessner strive to command and avoid challenges to their rule, not to transform social reality. Bereft of utopian goals requiring a mobilised and penetrated polity, true authoritarians (unlike Stroessner) do not seek mass approbation; they rely on fear rather than involvement and are satisfied with acquiescence or apathy. Ideological commitment to a visionary future informs larger tasks for totalitarians such as Castro. They not only command and manage, but strive to organise consent, to develop a broad consensus and inspire the polity to engage in societal upheaval by state-directed action. A final area of differentiation concerns the ends of non-democratic rule and the corruption of the dictator. Corruption represents a type of privateregarding behaviour exploiting public political authority for essentially private material motivation and advantage.20 As Lord Acton recognised, no absolutist regime can be immune from this type of graft. Regarding the dictator, however, a qualitative difference exists. Power utilised for essentially private ends is endemic in authoritarian dictatorship. Lacking the constraining ideological goals and roles which normatively bind totalitarians, Stroessners, Somozas and Trujillos treat the national patrimony essentially as a huge private domain. Lacking a