Two basic forms of totalitarianism in the XX-th century.

Authoritarianism: typology of forms

Authoritarianism is usually considered as type of a mode which is intermediate between totalitarianism and democracy.However the similar characteristic does not specify in intrinsic signs of the phenomenon as a whole even if to take into consideration what lines from totalitarianism and what from democracy can be found out in it. Appreciably at authoritarianism definition character of relations of the state and the person is significant: they are constructed a pain ше on compulsion, than on belief. Thus the authoritative mode liberalises public life, does not aspire to impose to a society of accurately developed official ideology, supposes the limited and controllable pluralism in political thinking, opinions and actions, is reconciled with opposition existence. The management of various spheres of life of a society is not so total, there is no strictly organised control over a social and economic infrastructure of a civil society, over manufacture, trade unions, educational institutions, mass organisations, mass media. Автократия (from греч. autokrateia - the autocracy, autocracy, that is an absolute power of one person) does not demand demonstration of fidelity from the population as at totalitarianism, absence of open political opposition suffices it. However the authoritative mode is ruthless to displays of a real political competition for the power, to actual participation of the population in decision-making on the major questions of life of a society. Authoritarianism suppresses the basic civil rights.

To keep an absolute power in the hands, the authoritative mode carries out circulation of elite not by competitive struggle of candidates on elections, and co-optation (strong-willed introduction) them in supervising structures. Owing to that process of delegation of power in similar modes is carried out not by the procedures of replacement of heads established by the law, and violently, these modes are not legitimate. However, despite lacking support from the people, автократии can exist long time and it is successful enough. They are capable to solve effectively strategic problems, despite the нелегитимность. As examples similar effective from the point of view of realisation of economic and social reforms authoritative modes can serve in Chile, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Argentina, the countries of the Arabian East.

The specified lines of authoritarianism testify to its known similarity to totalitarianism. However the most essential distinction between them consists in character of relations of the power with a society and the individual. If at authoritarianism these relations are differentiated and lean against «the limited pluralism» totalitarianism in general rejects any pluralism and a variety of social interests. Essential distinction is also that totalitarianism aspires to liquidate not only social, but also ideological pluralism, heterodoxy whereas authoritarianism does not challenge the right to independent self-expression of various groups of a society.

One of modern типологий authoritative modes belongs to German political scientist D.Berg-Shlosseru. It allocates following versions of authoritarianism.

Traditional абсолютистские monarchy - modes in which there is no division of the authorities and a political competition, the power is concentrated in hands of a narrow group of persons, the ideology of an aristocratic class dominates. As an example modes can serve in Gulf States, and also in Nepal, Morocco etc.

Traditional authoritative modes of oligarchical type prevail in Latin America. As a rule, the economic and political power at such modes is concentrated in hands of several influential families. One leader replaces another by means of revolution or falsification of results of elections. The elite is closely connected with church and a military top (for example, a mode in Guatemala).

Gegemonistsky authoritarianism of new oligarchy was created as a mode expressing interests компрадорской of bourgeoisie, that is that part of bourgeoisie of economically backward, dependent countries which carried out intermediary between the foreign capital and the national market. Such modes existed at presidency of Markosa on Philippines (1972-1985), in Tunis, Cameroon etc. enough a mass version of authoritative modes are «military modes». They happen three kinds: possessing strictly dictatorial, terrorist nature and personal character of the power (for example, I.Amina's mode in Uganda); the military juntas which are carrying out structural reforms (for example, a mode of general Pinocheta in Chile); the one-party modes existing in Egypt at G.A.Nasere, in Peru at X. Пероне, etc. it is necessary to allocate theocratic modes at which the political power concentrates in hands of ecclesiastics as one more version of authoritarianism. The mode аятоллы Khomeini in Iran can be an example of this kind.