The Ultimate importance of a people as a whole is recognised both in Democratic and Totalitarian Regimes.
Introduction
Democracy and Totalitarianism are two ideologies and types of government that have overtime, determined the political fate and destinies of various people and nations across the globe. These two ideological concepts prioritise the 
people in the course of leadership and control of government. However, what remains in doubt is the particular purpose that the people serve for either government. What really is the stake of the people in these governments and what do they represent? How are they carried along and what treatments do they receive from these governments?
Taking a critical look at the viewpoints of scholars and thinkers on the gains and pains of both ideologies in regard to their expectations and regard for the masses, one may end up either choosing the former over the latter, the latter over the former or none of the above. For instance, while Diamond (2004) defined democracy as a system of government that: allows for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair election; encourages the active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life; protects the human rights of the citizens; and ensures that the nobody is above the law, Bukowskii (1972) argues that the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy, you vote first and take orders later but in a dictatorship, you do not have to waste your time voting. Thus, it is in the course of finding out the stake of the people in both governments that this article becomes relevant.
Overall, the thrust of this article is not only to provide answers to the abovementioned questions, but also to expressively explain the uniqueness of democratic and totalitarian regimes as well as which one of them truly recognises the importance and usefulness of people viz a viz the promotion and protection of their human rights.
The concept of Democracy
According to Nwogu (2015, p. 131), There is yet to be a consensus on a general definition of the term ‘Democracy.’ As such, a lot of political scientists, experts and scholars have in very many occasions given their perspectives or viewpoints on the said ideology and government. However, the truth remains that even if democracy cannot be definitively defined, it can of course, be explained. On that note, Nwogu continued that the idea of democracy is widely acknowledged to have originated from Athens (Greece) in the 5th century BC. But it must be noted that the pattern of politicking practiced by Athenians during the time in question made democratic citizenship exclusive to freed men as well as men from the elite class of the society. Unfortunately, this pattern of politics disregarded women who were seen as mere slaves (Nwogu (2015, p. 131). Howbeit, while the ancient Athenian democracy involved the direct participation of all eligible citizens in the government, it is often seen as the pacesetter of modern democracies that is practiced today in countries like Britain United States, France, Australia, Switzerland, Austria, New Zealand and Nigeria
Democracy comes from the Ancient Greek words: ‘Demos’ (the people) and Kratein (to rule). When both words are juxtaposed together – ‘Demokratia,’ (Democracy) it translates to the rule of the people (Harrison & Boyd, 2018, p. 60). By and large, overtime, the Athenian democracy phased out and a new concept of democracy emerged largely as a result of the new wave of enlightenment that came with the reformation age, age of enlightenment and the American and French revolutions. This concept of democracy became known as ‘Representative democracy.
According to Dahl, Shapiro & Cheibib (2003), in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight; no unreasonable limitation can apply to anyone interested in becoming a representative and the freedom of eligible citizens of the country is guaranteed and secured by the constitution. Representative democracy gives room for the elections – a political exercise that allows the people to willingly make a choice of which leaders they want to oversee their affairs. Also, through competitive elections, democracy promotes equality among all qualified citizens.
In another event, representative democracy grants the citizens of a country certain fundamental rights and freedom that guarantees their humanness as well as citizenship. Some of these rights include: freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, association, press, among others that are considered to be very crucial rights and privileges that grant eligible citizens the opportunity to live meaningfully in the society (Barak, 2006, p. 29).
The concept of Totalitarianism
According to Baehr (2005, p. 2342), totalitarianism is among the most versatile and contested terms in the political lexicon. Furthermore, the author noted that totalitarianism is not only rooted in the terrible agony and horror of modern war, revolution, terror and genocide, but also projects a very high level of extremism in its denial of freedom, fundamental human rights and liberty. Based on Baehr’s assertion, one needs not be told that totalitarianism, unlike democracy, refers to a regime type with truly radical and absolute ambitions, with absolutely no regard for democratic principles like freedom of expression of human rights. This system of government seeks to rule over a people with no form of institutional and structural hinderances like party competition, press freedom, civic pluralism, and the likes (Baehr, 2005, p. 2342).
Having been proposed and coined by Giovanni Amendola, in May 1923, the idea of totalitarianism gained currency in Europe, from where it spread to other parts of the world. Highlighting the features of a totalitarian regime, Baehr (2005, p. 2344) emphasised that a conventional way of explaining totalitarianism is to present a list of characteristics that are common to Italian Fascism (a political ideology, regime or movement that exalts a nation and/or race above an individual or people, and approves of an autocratic government ruled by a dictatorial leader), German National Socialism (a form of fascism that strongly opposes liberalism and democracy. Its extreme nationalism originated in the struggle for a united Germany), and Soviet Bolshevism (a doctrine that advocates for a violent overthrow of capitalism) (Merriam-Webster dictionary, 2022; Spielvogel, 2010). In addition, there are other regimes that share the same attributes. They include: Chinese Communism under the rule of Mao Zedong, Cmbodia under Pol Pot and even North Korea.
Taking a cursory look at the writings of Carl Frederich Totalitarianism and Norman Davies Europe: A History published in 1954 and 1997 respectively, one can aptly identify the following features of totalitarianism as it relates to governance and the fate of the ruled.
It is revolutionary ideology that announces the destruction of the old and corrupt order, and the birth of a radically new one.
It takes the shape of a political party structure that, particularly prior to the conquest of a state power, devolves authority to local militants. And as it employs new recruits, it installs its leader – who feigns a high sense of infallibility – and demanding the unconditional devotion and respect of the people.
A regime in which offices are deliberated duplicated and officers are continually shuffled, with the intent to ensure total allegiance to the leader.
A regime that controls the press and all forms of media, public opinion, and organisations with the intent to obstruct free speech and criticism of the government.
A regime that ritually celebrates violence, danger, torture of the trenches and street fights in party uniforms and modes of address. Nonetheless, youths in the society are a special audience used for such celebration with the expectation that they would always pay allegiance to the ‘old fighters’ of the revolution.
A regime that wastes no time in eliminating perceived oppositions based on qualities such as race, background, criminality (whether guilty or not guilty), and others.
The regime makes it a culture to always mobilise the populationfor wars, ceaseless campaigns, struggles or purges
It often employ the use of terror to intimidate, isolate and regiment anyone and everyone the regime sees as an obstruction to its progress
Additionally, Bernholz, in Baehr (2005) describes a totalitarian regime as an ideocracy which has not yet attained the aims implied by its supreme values, and which tries to pursue them with the spiritual and secular power available after it has gained domination of a State. Overall, all these explanations point at one thing and that is that a totalitarian regime is autocratic, dictates for the people and employs the use of force and torture against their will just to achieve its drastic aims and objectives.
Democracies and Totalitarianisms: the position of the people
Again, Harrison & Boyd (2018, p. 60) argue that many forms of government see themselves as democratic and as such, are described in the same manner. For instance, Adolf Hitler described the Third Reich as ‘German Democracy,’ which according to him was the true democracy. In the same vein, the Italian leader, Benito Mussolini, described Fascism as ‘the purest form of democracy.’ Furthermore, while communist regimes describe themselves as ‘people’s democracies,’ most dictatorships especially, those in the developing countries of Asia and Africa, also feign to practice democratic principles (Harrison & Boyd, 2018). Knowing fully well that these leaders are dictators who ruled/rule their people with so much disdain and force, with little or no regard for their opinions, rights and/or liberty, one may be tempted to ask if describing themselves as democracies was a way of making mockery of the concept and the people or rather, their own personal opinion of what they had thought was ‘a true sense of democracy”’
However, it has become necessary at this point in time to justify both regimes with a true sense of objectivity especially with regard to their respect for the will of the masses – not only those in power but also those who are being led. The following justifications would be made below:
Totalitarian regimes always claim to have a better understanding of leadership – one that sets in to purify the state spiritually and secularly, and purge it from all forms of corruption and monopolistic tendencies. But on the other hand, these regimes end up infiltrating the society’s political, economic, and social institutions just to get power. And upon grabbing power, it monopolises all sectors of the state’s economy and then tries to shut down all form of opposition against it.
As it had been mentioned in this article, totalitarian regimes have no regard for the will of the masses. Leaders in countries where this form of government is practiced like China, North Korea, Iran and others often rule by decree and easily eliminate perceived oppositions. With such government, there is no way the will of the majority will be recognised and respected.
Totalitarian regimes often operate a one-party system thus raising a red flag for completion and power tussle. This practice end up depriving the people their ultimate will to exercise their franchise through voting during elections.
Totalitarian regimes take advantage of state police and armed forces and use them secretly to terrorize the people.
Such regimes take pride in media censorship. They do not condone criticism. Based on this, one may be bothered to know how a government will be interested in knowing the heart and mind of those it is leading without approval of gainful criticisms.
By and large, unlike totalitarian regimes, democracy (liberal democracy) establish the conditions for individual freedom, participation in government, freedom of speech and thought, freedom of association, religion, the press, and above all, rule of law. These features made liberal democracy triumph over the struggles and fearful wars attached to totalitarianism and authoritarianism in the 20th century (Harrison & Boyd, 2018, p. 59). Furthermore, just like liberal democracy, democracies in the modern time also recognises the ultimate will of the people by ensuring that they are properly represented in the governance of the State. Furthermore, the following reasons could serve as justification as to why democratic regimes recognise the ultimate will of the people unlike what is obtainable in totalitarian regimes.
Democratic governments claim popular sovereignty which allows it the moral and political right to govern the people upon whose will and sovereignty they stand and represent. These governments govern in accordance to the consent of the electorates. Modern democracies like Britain, United States and France believe that the people exist independently of their state and while the state or government is meant to carry out the will of the people, true democracy must recognize the rights and freedom of the people as well as the need to checkmate the excesses of the government for the sake of accountability
In a democratic regime, the citizens give their consent to a course of action. This is done through the mandate of the people by election or referenda. Here, the people’s consent is often reaffirmed through the arrangement of free and regular elections, where different political parties other than one are allowed to willingly compete for political power.
Arguably, true democratic regimes, to an extent, give room for the following:
the rule of law
promotion and protection of the fundamental human rights of the citizens
public opinion
freedom of the press
regular change of government through elections
leadership through the constitution and not by decree
Moreso, democratic regimes, arguably, may not stand out as the best form of government coupled with the fact that they are featured by political and economic inadequacies like corruption, insecurity (Transparency International, 2012), political bigotry (Diamond, 2004), unemployment, inequality, ethnic chauvinism, religious and communal conflicts, and the likes (Nwogu, 2015, pp. 136-138). But at least, they let the people take the centre stage in all issues bordering on government and governance.
Conclusion
The article examined the concepts of democracy and totalitarianism. As different ideologies and forms of government, the article x-rayed their attributes with the overarching objective of understanding the stake, position and interest of the people in both governments. Justifying both ideologies especially in regard to how they prioritise the people, the article finds that while totalitarian regimes in countries like China under Chief Mao Zedong, Cambodia under Pal Pot, North Korea under Kim Jong Un, Germany under Adolf Hitler, Italy under Benito Mussolini and the former Soviet Union treated the masses with great disdain and with little or no regard for their rights, democratic regimes, irrespective of their challenges, fully recognise the legitimacy and sovereignty of the people and State. Thus, it is based on these justifications, that the article concludes that the ultimate will of a people as a whole is recognised more in democratic regimes.
References
Baehr, P. (2005). Totalitarianism. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265729481.
Barak, A. (2006). The Judge in a Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bukowski, C. (1972). Erections, Ejaculations, Exhibitions and Tales of Ordinary Madness. San Francisco: City Lights Publishers.
Dahl, R., Shapiro, I., & Cheibub. (2003). The Democracy Sourcebook. MIT Press.
Diamond, L. (2004). What is Democracy? http://www.standard. Edu/-/diamond/Iraq/whalsDemocracy012004.htm.
Harrison, K. & Boyd, T. (2018). Democracy. Manchesteropenhive.com
Merriam-Webster dictionary (2022). Fascism. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism.
Nwogu, G., A., I. (2015). Democracy: Its Meaning and Dissenting Opinions of the Political Class in Nigeria: A Philosophical Approach. Journal of Education and practice 6(4), 131-142.
Sielvogel, J. (2010). Hitler and Nazi Germany: A History. New York: Routledge.
Transparency International (2012). Nigeria: Corruption Perception Index and Transparency. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CorruptionPerception-Index.
