What are the distinctions between "authoritarian", "totalitarian", and "dictatorial"?

Solution 1:

These words are related but might not refer to the same exact thing. For example if you check the Wikipedia entry for Authoritarianism you will find this entry:

Authoritarianism is a form of social organization characterized by submission to authority. It is opposed to individualism and democracy. In politics, an authoritarian government is one in which political power is concentrated in a leader or leaders, typically unelected by the people, who possess exclusive, unaccountable, and arbitrary power. Authoritarianism differs from totalitarianism in that social and economic institutions exist that are not under the government's control.

so immediately you see the distinction between authoritarianism vs. totalitarianism. If you now go to the Wikipedia entry for Totalitarianism you will find this entry:

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state, usually under the power of a single political person, faction, or class, recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.Totalitarianism is usually characterized by the coincidence of authoritarianism (where ordinary citizens have less significant share in state decision-making) and ideology (a pervasive scheme of values promulgated by institutional means to direct most if not all aspects of public and of public and private life).

We see here that Totalitarianism is characterized by Authoritarianism AND ideology.

If we now check Despotism vs. Dictatorship we find that for Despotism is

a form of government in which a single entity, called the despot, rules with absolute power. That entity may be an individual, as in an autocracy, or it may be a group, as in an oligarchy. The word despotism means to "rule in the fashion of a despot" and should not be confused with "despot", an individual.

the key word here is "single entity" which can actually be an individual OR a group. Under dictatorship we find this entry:

A dictatorship is defined as an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by an individual, the dictator.

also we find the distinction between dictatorships and totalitarian rule (with reference to authoritarianism:

For some scholars, a dictatorship is a form of government that has the power to govern without consent of those being governed (similar to authoritarianism), while totalitarianism describes a state that regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior of the people. In other words, dictatorship concerns the source of the governing power (where the power comes from) and totalitarianism concerns the scope of the governing power (what is the government). In this sense, dictatorship (government without people's consent) is a contrast to democracy (government whose power comes from people) and totalitarianism (government controls every aspect of people's life) opposes pluralism (government allows multiple lifestyles and opinions). Though the definitions of the terms differ, they are related in reality as most of the dictatorship states tend to show totalitarian characteristics. When governments' power does not come from the people, their power is not limited and tend to expand their scope of power to control every aspect of people's life.

For autocracy we find this entry:

An autocracy is a form of government in which one person possesses unlimited power.1 An autocrat is a person (such as a monarch) ruling with unlimited authority.

a distinction is made between autocratic rule vs. miliatry dictatorships with some reference also to totalitarian rule:

Autocracy and totalitarianism are related concepts. Autocracy is defined by one individual having unlimited legislative and executive power, while totalitarianism extends to regulating every aspect of public and private life. Totalitarianism does not imply a single ruler, but extends to include absolute rule by any faction or class of elites who recognize no limit to their authority. Autocracy differs from military dictatorship, as these often take the form of "collective presidencies" such as the South American juntas. However, an autocracy may be totalitarian or be a military dictatorship.

I hope this helps! :)

Solution 2:

To give some real-world examples, we could posit the following as exemplars (understanding, of course, that these characterizations are subject to debate):

• Authoritarian state: Singapore
• Totalitarian state: Maoist China (particularly during the Cultural Revolution)
• Despotic state: Uganda under Idi Amin; Zimbabwe under Mugabe
• Dictatorship: Italy under Mussolini, Egypt under Mubarak
• Autocracy: Libya under Qaddafi

While we usually hold negative associations about these kinds of regimes, in some cases like Suharto's long authoritarian rule of Indonesia, we see stability and a general improvement in the citizens' standard of living.

Solution 3:

“Authoritarian” is best understood by considering where authority/the power rests. Is it with the government/state? Or does it sit with the individual? The opposite of “authoritarianism” is “liberty”. You may have countless forms of government that support one side or the other, or anywhere along the spectrum between the two.

That said, totalitarianism is an extreme form of authoritarianism, implying total control over all affairs. "Despotic" is the degree to which those in control are willing to go to enforce their authoritarianism, often implying terrorizing the populace, even arbitrarily, as a means of gaining compliance/achieving those in power's desired ends (which may be as base as pure, morbid self-gratification, etc.).

That aside, a dictatorship (generally synonymous with autocracy) is a form of government — as are democracy, monarchy, anarchy (classic definition, not the "hoodlums busting windows chanting anti-capitalist/pro-commie slogans" pop-media usage), theocracy, etc.

Any one of these forms of government can tilt towards liberty or authoritarianism.

For example, a dictator might be a despot and deem that the nation he rules is for his personal agenda only, that people are there to serve his interest (financing it through taxes, for example), the populace essentially slaves to his whim, his national interests, etc. He and his cronies may rape and pillage and terrorize, their own populations etc. as a means of gaining compliance or/and personal gratification.

Or… the dictator may deem that liberty is the highest social order, and that the sole purpose of his government is to restore the population's liberty — their right to consent. He would jail those who would steal, murder, etc., and while he would encourage the to be charitable and good people, and otherwise leave them alone. The people would be responsible for funding the forces used to protect their own liberty, and would be free to organize that as they choose. He would probably come down on hard against those who would choose to politically organize to create a form of government that enables the violation of the individual's right to consent/liberty. In other words, the people are able to do as they please so long as they respect others' liberty — their right to say "no thanks" when it comes to their property, body, labor, etc. They may have no say in their government, but their government only intervenes to protect them. It is otherwise non existent. This is unlikely, but it is conceivable.

With that in mind, totalitarian quantifies the degree of which authoritarianism reigns. E.g. a democracy may lean quite heavily to authoritarian rule — where the majority may violate the liberty of others who lose elections. The more the people vote that individuals must defer to the State authority on all matters, the more totalitarian the authoritarian government.